[Vera Politica]

It's to be expected, given that he's a kantian idealist that rejects dialectical materialism. That's not marxism in my book.

That would be the book of an arrogant 18 year old that makes videos of himself singing to immortal technique? The day you actually understand what 'kantian idealism' and 'dialectical materialism' means is the day your posts become worth responding to. Until then, please avoid trolling.

It seems here that you're making some odd typology where blue-collar workers have class consciousness and where white-collar workers seem to be trapped into a form of false consciousness.

In general I would say this is true and it is exactly what I said (although it is not exclusive as it is not a scientific category, only a 'realist' observation. I don't see, however, how this typology is odd in any way. It seems clear that the vast majority of the working class that are trapped into a false consciousness (i.e. 'middle class', or those that simply do not think of themselves as a working class) are, overwhelming, a part of the white-collar workforce and white-collar management. In what way is this observation odd? It is the typical North American experience.

Also your definitions of culture and the way in which you're using the term seem to ignore the rigorous analysis of working class consciousness and culture itself by Marxists over the past few decades.

Such as? Please elaborate as a lot of post-Marxist social analysis is liberal in nature - and I think you would agree to this as well. Again, I am not giving any scientific or socio-cultural analysis I am merely making a pertinent observation that many young Marxists simply ignore. It is the reason that many young Marxists tend to form within the 'fad', 'hipster' and 'countercultural' scenes. My point is simply that none of these cultures, none of these ideas, have anything to do with Marxism or the working class. But again, how exactly are you using the word 'conservative'? By conservative I mean simply the hostility towards liberal values, sexual culture and promiscuity, consumerism, etc. as well as the liberal policies that tackle socio-economic issues (in particular welfarism).

I have a hard time following your logic of: if certain segments of the North American working class (and to be specific the "more valid, blue collar working class") are conservative: Marxism should take this form as well.

This has more to do with your oversimplification of my points rather than any confusion on my part. I am not sure I ever said this, as Marxism is not a 'cultural form' but a socio-scientific analysis. So saying 'Marxism should take a conservative form' is nonsensical. In fact, it is liberal Marxists that have turned Marxism into more than socio-scientific analysis, i.e. into a cultural and ideological form of its own appropriating liberal values like feminism, race theory, welfarism, sexual theory, etc. This has created a proto-typical assumption: A Marxist is a feminist, environmentalist, pro-abortionist, pot-smoking leftist 'hippie' (for lack of a better word). And, to extend my point (as this is the only point I was making) none of this resonates with the conscious working class - I think most people would know this if they were raised in such an environment.

Marxists should shed this degrading, cultural stereotype, shed drugs, promiscuity and appear respectable to workers.

The problem here is that you are lacking any sort of investigation into the origins of those conservative values, that have been manipulated just as much by the ruling intellectual elite (or at least those who serve that elite) as any sort of "progressive" or "degenerate" values.

This is nonsense - this vertical ideological structure you are giving a caricature of has no place in this discussion. Cultures and ideological structures are not formed by a 'top-down' manipulation - this is very juvenile. There is a reason that the conscious working class adopts cultural values, that is certain, but it is not some mystical manipulation by the overlords.

To claim that those values are the "true independent working class values" is just absurd, as it's quite easy to show how those values come into play to divide the working class for the advantage of capital time and time again (e.g. desegregation movement, labor movements in general, etc.)

Again, an oversimplification of my point and a juvenile analysis of the complexity of ideological and cultural formation.

As Eauz pointed out earlier: some conservative sections of the working class are quite anti-Marxist as well: does that mean that as a Marxist strategy to emancipate the working class that we should adopt an anti-Marxist stance? This conclusion is of course absurd.

This is absurd Kurt and does not follow from anything I have said, only your caricature of what I am saying. If my position need be summed up in a single sentence, it is what I wrote earlier: "However, as much as these class conscious workers have to learn from Marxists, today's young Marxists have a lot to learn from these workers."

[Donna]

Considering that Lenin had removed the old Tsarist provisions that outlawed no-fault divorce, homosexuality and abortion in a backwards, agrarian Russia in 1920 and that these policies persisted until the emergence of the Bolshevik right and the era of Stalin/socialism in one country, it is difficult to entertain the idea that feminism and the normalization of homosexuality are either liberal bourgeois in origin or that a revolutionary working class would be hostile towards social inclusiveness among the proletariat. This had happened, after all, before the expansion of productive forces impelled bourgeois society to address (primarily) the economic obstacles that traditional gender roles posed, and by extension, the sexual openness that is relative to expanding productive forces. It is easy to see the logical problems with the 'conservative' argument, but at the same time it is worth observing that capital has degenerated the working class anywhere from VP's anecdotal accounts of Montreal's east-end conservatism, through hostility to intellectuals and even established sciences, religious fundamentalism to barbarism and tribalism elsewhere among the more severely exploited. To what extent this remains a problem for the application of international socialism is entirely conjecture at this point.

It's to be expected, given that he's a kantian idealist that rejects dialectical materialism. That's not marxism in my book.

Are you going to add to the discussion and elaborate why he's a "kantian idealist that rejects dialectical materialism"? Or are you trolling?

[KurtFF8]

In general I would say this is true and it is exactly what I said (although it is not exclusive as it is not a scientific category, only a 'realist' observation. I don't see, however, how this typology is odd in any way. It seems clear that the vast majority of the working class that are trapped into a false consciousness (i.e. 'middle class', or those that simply do not think of themselves as a working class) are, overwhelming, a part of the white-collar workforce and white-collar management. In what way is this observation odd? It is the typical North American experience.

The idea that blue collar workers are more class conscious is problematic here. Blue collar can often play right into the hands of capital, not just with their strategy but with their own class identification. I do agree that white collar workers often just identify themselves as "middle-class" and thus can often be engaged in a different form of false consciousness, but I also don't think that it follows that those blue collar workers who self identify thus have a higher, more developed level of "accurate" class consciousness.

Such as? Please elaborate as a lot of post-Marxist social analysis is liberal in nature - and I think you would agree to this as well. Again, I am not giving any scientific or socio-cultural analysis I am merely making a pertinent observation that many young Marxists simply ignore. It is the reason that many young Marxists tend to form within the 'fad', 'hipster' and 'countercultural' scenes. My point is simply that none of these cultures, none of these ideas, have anything to do with Marxism or the working class. But again, how exactly are you using the word 'conservative'? By conservative I mean simply the hostility towards liberal values, sexual culture and promiscuity, consumerism, etc. as well as the liberal policies that tackle socio-economic issues (in particular welfarism).

Indeed a lot of the work has been done as "post-Marxist" social analysis and is quite problematic. I don't see how conservative equates to hostility towards consumerism, as there are quite a few "liberal" critiques of consumer culture as well. Especially if you look in the "hipster" counter-cultures where they try to escape that culture as much as possible.

It seems that your use of conservative isn't fitting with the predominant use of the term. I'm also hostile towards the ideology of Liberalism, but I don't consider myself conservative in any way.

This has more to do with your oversimplification of my points rather than any confusion on my part. I am not sure I ever said this, as Marxism is not a 'cultural form' but a socio-scientific analysis. So saying 'Marxism should take a conservative form' is nonsensical. In fact, it is liberal Marxists that have turned Marxism into more than socio-scientific analysis, i.e. into a cultural and ideological form of its own appropriating liberal values like feminism, race theory, welfarism, sexual theory, etc. This has created a proto-typical assumption: A Marxist is a feminist, environmentalist, pro-abortionist, pot-smoking leftist 'hippie' (for lack of a better word). And, to extend my point (as this is the only point I was making) none of this resonates with the conscious working class - I think most people would know this if they were raised in such an environment.

Marxists should shed this degrading, cultural stereotype, shed drugs, promiscuity and appear respectable to workers.

I do agree that moving Marxism towards only a cultural critique is problematic. The fact that Zizek can just sit around and review films and claim that he is being a revolutionary is quite problematic as well. That doesn't mean that Marxists should ignore culture of course.

The idea that Marxists should ignore questions of gender, sexuality, race, etc. simply doesn't make any sense to me. These antagonisms do exist in society, and whether they can be eventually boiled down to and reduced solely the class struggle or not shouldn't matter in terms of analysis. They're real problems. For example: being "pro-abortionist" is something I think that all Marxists should take up, because there are specific class reasons why abortion should be legal (having to do with the domestic division of labor, women in the workplace, etc. etc.)

I think the idea that something, to continue that example, like abortion does not resonate with the working class is just as ideological as you claim the liberal ideology is guilty of. Working class women need access to abortion too, and to say otherwise is just as much a form of "disrespect to the working class" as any of these other cultural mores that you claim are important.

This is nonsense - this vertical ideological structure you are giving a caricature of has no place in this discussion. Cultures and ideological structures are not formed by a 'top-down' manipulation - this is very juvenile. There is a reason that the conscious working class adopts cultural values, that is certain, but it is not some mystical manipulation by the overlords.

I didn't claim that they were top-down. It's obviously a bit more complex than that, and if you reread what I posted: I used the term manipulated by the intellectual elite: not created or formed by that elite. Ideology is a complex question that has to do with the overall power structure of society and of course can't just be reduced to "the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class"

"However, as much as these class conscious workers have to learn from Marxists, today's young Marxists have a lot to learn from these workers."

I don't see where there is disagreement here then. Of course Marxists who engage in forms of activism, for example, have a lot to learn from the working class, but that (as you admit) doesn't mean that workers don't have things to learn from Marxists. Where we disagree would be whether those things Marxists have to offer should include things like abortion "rights" where you seem to be quite opposed to them for personal reasons and perhaps your own upbringing as opposed to any theoretical reason.

[Vera Politica]

The idea that blue collar workers are more class conscious is problematic here.

It is only problematic if you equate class consciousness with 'revolutionary' consciousness, something which I did not do. False consciousness, however, is not really used in a way that is relevant here (it usually refers to the naturalization of economic organization).

Especially if you look in the "hipster" counter-cultures where they try to escape that culture as much as possible.

Hipsterism as a counter-cultural, counter-consumerist movement has actually become an individualist, consumerist, hedonistic culture. There isn't a liberal culture out there that is actually anti-consumerist. Perhaps we are both understanding conservative very differently, by conservative I meant an anti-hedonistic culture (and liberalism is certainly the worst form of cultural hedonism we've seen in a long time).

The idea that Marxists should ignore questions of gender, sexuality, race, etc. simply doesn't make any sense to me.

I do not think they are real problems, they are only idealizations. There is no such thing as 'gender' oppression or 'sexual' oppression unless you give a sophisticated psycho-social account of oppression (any attempt, I would argue, would be unscientific).

Where we disagree would be whether those things Marxists have to offer should include things like abortion "rights" where you seem to be quite opposed to them for personal reasons and perhaps your own upbringing as opposed to any theoretical reason.

I don't oppose abortion as policy, only as a life-choice. That is, I do not think it should be illegal (unless there is need to increase the population) it should, however, be discouraged. Sadly, abortion is not an altruistic method as you say - it is often not used responsibly and in good conscience (although it is, at times) - but used as a remedy for sexual promiscuity (and, so, encourages sexual promiscuity). And of course there are personal reason for my personal beliefs (by definition). The thing that bugs me (I'm not saying this is the case with yourself) is that people form opinions without having any experience with them. I experienced the working class upbringing and the issue of abortion is not a theoretical issue for me but has become a personal one - something which has been experienced in my family... more than once. So, again, there is a distinction here - as when I say a conservative culture I do not mean supporting conservative policies but supporting conservative life-choices. There is a difference.

[Zyx]

This was an interesting thread and I'd like to partake, but at the moment I can commit no further than a slight commentary on the above discussion, a small blurb from a relevant essay and further words to maybe influence the direction of this thread.

The debate seems settled. Vera Politica had brilliantly dismissed the needs of an analysis of social oppression months ago, and KurtFF8's revival of this thread only allowed Vera Politica to hammer his point home harder, bringing Donald et al. to contribute to this thread against his point but to what avail? In fact, the contributions of Donald et al. were to reveal that Vera Politica's points were senseless; nearly entirely derived from an insular myopia over a "working class" removed from significance or an analytical framework. Worse, he contrasts blue and white collar as though in a revolution such opposition were meaningful, and even worse, as if the 'working class' that he cites, the foreman who distrusts immigrants and detests the sexually liberated, were the most exploited or revolutionary.

So, I will cite the reality of capitalism, so that one can see what conservatism and liberalism are and what progressive thought amounts to:

(p. 128)
" In the decades following the Glorious Revolution, enormous structural changes, set in motion during the century and culminating in the two revolutions, began to resonate in the English family and in relations between men and women. Several important large-scale changes converged on the late 17th-century household, prompting the renegotiation of gender relations, of sexuality and marriage, and a reexamination of the notion of masculinity. Although these changes did not originate in the late 17th century, one important result of the two revolutions was the sweeping away of the intellectual, political, and social obstacles to their transformation of English society.
One crucial set of structural changes hinged on the transformation of the economy in general, and on the organization of work in particular. Individual handicraft production by independent artisans was declining in the cities, as artisans were "entering upon their long agony in competition with bigger economic units" (Hill, 1961, p. 308). In the countryside, larger units became increasingly common, as land ownership was consolidated by a new wave of enclosures toward the end of the century. The small independent farmer, the yeomanry, was "disappearing" (Hill, 1961, p. 308), and waves of rural migrants were forced off the land and streamed into London and other cities. "The country is poor, the nation is racked . . . and the humble gentleman is half-starved," Observed Sir Charles Sedly in the House of Commons in November 1691 (cited in Plumb, 1967, p. 136).
Concentration of land ownership and the decline of craft production combined with mercantilist economic doctrines in transforming London from a capital city to a "focal point," a "centre of world trade" (Lockyer, 1964, p. 435; Hill, 1961, p. 266). The ballooning population of the capital was even further exacerbated by late-century changes in the treatment of the poor. Before the Civil War, the Royal Council had often intervened in the localities and provided poor relief and some small measure of security. After 1660, however, the "problem of poverty was left almost entirely to the Justices of the Peace and to private charity" (Lockyer, 1964, p. 445), which meant that poor men and women were left to fend for themselves. Countless numbers descended on London in hopes of finding work, charity, or both.
These economic changes add up to a profound loss of occupational autonomy for a large number of men. Artisans, craftsmen, small shopkeepers, yeoman farmers, and other independent tradesmen and professionals suffered a severe erosion of autonomy in the organization of work. This loss of autonomy may have been ironically abetted by ideological changes that stressed the increasing importance of the individual and political changes that enlarged the franchise. The rise of liberal theory at the end of the century--especially in the work of Locke, and earlier Hobbes and Harrington--indicated a shift "from the collectivity, whether kin or nuclear family, to the individual" (Stone, 1984, p. 402) and provided an ideological grounding for capitalist accumulation, as well as the celebration of individual freedom. Simultaneously, in the late 17th century, the "electorate grew very rapidly," so that despite the exclusion of women, children, and laboring poor males--the electorate included less than 1/30 of the population--Plumb claims that "for the first time in English history [an electorate] had come into being" (Plumb, 1967, pp. 45, 40).
Even though these changes "brought no widening of the franchise" (Hill, 1961, p. 297), it is more important perhaps that contemporaries believed that they augured substantive change. Just when many Englishmen were losing their economic autonomy, ideological shifts indicated that they had gained increased individual independence. One psychological outcome of such contradictory information was a confused and amorphous self-blaming, in which Englishmen had neither relief nor justification for rebellion. There remained "no political outlet for the passions and resentments of those whom their betters expected to work harder for low wages in deplorable living conditions" (Hill, 1961, p. 297) and there was no one, it seemed, to blame but themselves."

. . .

(p. 130)
"Family and Gender Relations in Late 17th-Century England

These structural changes resonated with changes in social relations, and especially relations within the family. The rise of literacy and individualism, and the decline of infant mortality and the traditional patriarchal family, all sparked renegotiation of the relations between women and men. Inspired by indvidiaulism, men "now pleased themselves by marrying later; by marrying brides of their choice . . . by staying unmarried altogether if they were so inclined . . . and by limiting births in order to ease the strain on their wives and to improve the quality of care devoted to their children" (Stone, 1984, p. 402). Schofield and Wrigley calculated that in the second half of the 17th century, as much as 22.9% of the population of both sexes between 40 and 44 had never been married (1983, p. 176).*
Even though Prostestant doctrine had, since the Reformation, assigned to the husband the role of leader of the family--a role which had formerly belonged to the parish priest--which tended to buttress patriarchal authority, Hill also notes (1961, p. 308) that "the close knit patriarchal community was being undermined in the same decades as the patriarchal theory of monarchy collapsed. The wives of the poor were becoming domestic drudges for their absent husbands rather than partners in a family workshop." Women's slow entry into the world of work was also seen as a threat to continued male domination; women's wages "were regarded as a threat to male authority, a temptation to female luxury in indulgence and an incitement to female independence" (McKendrick, 1974, p. 167). Economically, politically, and socially, "women were chipping away at the edges of traditional expectations," a process that made men increasingly anxious (Nussbaum, 1983, p. 9). Finally, the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714) may have increased the male-female tension since Regency governments were often politically vulnerable and brought gender issues into the spotlight.

*By the second half ot he 18th century, fewer than 9 percent were unmarried, so the percentages had shifted from one in four to one in ten in less than a century."

. . .


(p. 132)
" . . . women perceived marraige as the only legitimate source of sexual pleasure, which required greater equality. The author of An Answer for the Pleasure of the Single Life (1701) supports marraige precisely because it provides regular sex for women:

Thus single Sots, who wedlock vainly fight
Are slaves to Lust, both Morning, Noon, and Night
Ruin their health, their Honour and estate
And buy Repentance at a cursed rate
While lawful wedded couples spend their times
In happy charming Pleasures without crimes . . . (p. 4)

And women actually enjoyed the sex: "While happy Man and Wife in Love agree/And both unite in Mutual Harmonie" (p. 4)."

Vera Politica's positions are contrary to analysis and are unobservant, insular and, I'd say, reactionary. Continuously he espouses a blind emphasis on the Western traditions of thoughts, but any clear observer could tell that these traditions had got us in this mess. Does the Bible not subordinate women? Did Calvinism not encourage selfless labour? Are not Hobbes and Locke the spirits of individualism? Aren't Augustus and Aquinas authoritative? Under Vera Politica, there is no revolution. And he also wishes to continue Western domination despite its glaring cultural flaws compared to non-European countries. Moreover, and quite irritably, Vera Politica often repeats a disagreement with environmentalism, perhaps his dumbest, most ignorant opinion yet. Not only is environmentalism covered by intelligently Engels," but "working class" delusions over environmentalism is their most degenerate myopia yet: the Global South suffers tremendously because of Global Warming and for Vera Politica to espouse the bourgeois dismissal of the working world's sufferings more than justifies censoring Vera Politica as a reactionary unfit for anything short of an oppositional marker when revolution does come. He romanticizes a reactionary and ignorant soi-disant 'working class,' and it's our duty, as the Left, to silence his clarion for bourgeois interests.

And that is most of what I wanted to say. Conservatism and Liberalism are Capitalism and we ought to be against that. To the OP's question on whether abolishing the economic oppression will abolish all others, it'd matter too if we rid the Western paradigm. Women as object is steeped in Western, and only, Western art, derived itself from the Bible. An analysis of this is necessary for any respectable Leftist and the reactionary, Western soi-disant 'working class' should have no place in the revolution until re-educated.

[Le Rouge]

Yes--but no. Marxists correctly point out the economic origins of racism, sexism, and other "post-modern" forms of "non-economic" interactions. However, some reductionists Marxist turn a blind eye that despite being intimately inter-wined with economic relations, these mental economic products (intellectual commodities, if you will) have become reified and the creation has enslaved the creator, and, namely, that these products have developed their own forms of social practice.

[Eauz]

Ok, before we go anywhere, I don't think anyone is in a position to be labelling other users as reactionary or revolutionary.

Secondly:

he is a production foreman, only one spot removed from the general worker

It really doesn't matter how much you want to put utopian images of certain people in your mind as representing the working-class culture. Your father is a foreman, in other words, a member of middle management within a company. He is used as a tool used by the employer to ensure employees perform the proper job.

Nevertheless, I still don't see your point. Just because your grasping at culture of a specific group of people doesn't suggest that all working-class members who are conscious of class relations have cultural values related to conservatism (anti-hedonistic culture). Just look at the short history of the working-class and pre-working-class people. For the most part, they accepted the changes in their lives, they may have fought against it, but in the end, they became integrated in the socio-economic structure of society. In other words, their cultural values transformed into that of the structure of society. I just don't see why it is acceptable in Marxism to suggest we transform all values to those of the working-class, who can be equally reactionary, no matter the understanding of class conciousness. Just because the working-class culture has been molded by capitalism, doesn't mean that Marxism should bend over backwards to potential reactionary philosophies that accumulated by this molding.

[Vera Politica]

Vera Politica had brilliantly dismissed the needs of an analysis of social oppression months ago, and KurtFF8's revival of this thread only allowed Vera Politica to hammer his point home harder

Well thanks for that Zyx (a shade of a compliment from your rather heart-felt anti-Vera post ). However, the second round of discussion has nothing to do with the first other than being thematically similar. The first bout was and remained within the confines of theoretical analysis. The second centered on cultural observations - so the conceptual link is thematic, at best. Given this, your post actually falls apart. Your argument seems to be (and correct me if I am wrong here) that we can reject the conclusion I made concerning the first (i.e. concerning the dispensibility of feminism, race theory, etc. etc. in our theoretical analysis of oppression) because, as you think, such a theoretical position stems from some sort of 'reactionary' myopia on my part. You are intelligent, Zyx, and if this is the line of reasoning then I need not say more than identify its logical incoherence - which is plainly obvious, it commits a classical logical fallacy (it is, at its basis, an ad hominem).

Worse, he contrasts blue and white collar as though in a revolution such opposition were meaningful, and even worse, as if the 'working class' that he cites, the foreman who distrusts immigrants and detests the sexually liberated, were the most exploited or revolutionary.

The contrast, Zyx, wasn't of any significance in terms of analysis. It is, rather, a contrast made within the working class and by workers themselves. I do not think such a distinction is meaningful in terms of analysis (in fact, I agree, it is a senseless distinction in terms of analysis) but it is still a real idealization which often contrasts workers with more conservative values over workers without.
Moreover, the use of ' marks that somehow insinuates that a foreman, given the context of today's manufacturing process, is somehow 'less' working class than any other represents only a complete disassociation, on your part, with work in manufacturing centers. Moreover, this perception isn't limited to this anecdote - and the cases are abound where workers in traditional 'blue collar' sections tend to appropriate conservative values. This statement, however, is not meant to be a statement in terms of analysis - it is not a functional or explanatory claim. In no way do I suggest that misguided distinctions in the working class functionally explain cultural norms. The only statement which could be extracted from my posts in the second part of the discussion which may have any merit in terms of theoretical analysis is the functional explanation given between the university and cultural norms - and I do not think it a coincidence that university gradate tend to appropriate more 'liberal' values.

But I must, once again, clarify a misconception (shared by many who are arguing here). The idea of a 'conservative culture' seems to be used quite differently - all I meant by 'conservative culture' or 'conservative values' is simply a life-style that is often antithetical to cultural hedonism. Since I identify a liberal culture with hedonism, 'conservativeness' is simply its antithesis (not in a dialectical relation mind you). So, given this, there are probably qualities which you identify as 'conservative' which I identify as 'liberal'. In fact, I am using 'conservative' as antithetical to liberal, but the traditional use of 'conservativeness', at least on PoFo, is, in my book, still glaringly liberal.

And finally, to get more 'analytical', there is a definite relationship with particular segments of the working class and anti-immigrant sentiments. In fact, there is a definite correlation (by this I do not imply causation) between anti-immigrant and racist sentiments among members of the working class who are in direct competition with immigrants (and this tends to be in the so called 'blue collar' sectors and manufacturing mostly). The Quebecois hostility to Italian immigration may be explained (at least at certain level of analysis) by the fact that as late as 1980, the Quebecois and Italians were the lowest paid ethnic groups and, thus, competing for the same jobs. These individuals also tend to live in closer proximity in non-gentrified areas of the city and actually interact. Urbanization contributes in this 'explanatory' edifice - but again, causation is not a point I am making.

Continuously he espouses a blind emphasis on the Western traditions of thoughts, but any clear observer could tell that these traditions had got us in this mess. Does the Bible not subordinate women? Did Calvinism not encourage selfless labour? Are not Hobbes and Locke the spirits of individualism? Aren't Augustus and Aquinas authoritative?

The Western tradition is far superior in its intellectual progress than any other intellectual tradition (if there is such a thing as a 'western' intellectual tradition). One could, with good reason, claim that this hasn't been always historically true - and to this I agree - however, as it stands, Western tradition and European culture has fostered the most progressive forms of knowledge, production, technology and social organization. It has, paradoxically, also produced the most culturally hedonistic and disturbed forms of individualism. It is the western tradition that gave us Marxism and modern social science - without which this conversation would make little sense. This, however, is not to say that any possible, future, global culture is not without merit or value. It is to say, however, that there is little sense to look toward non-Western traditions, as they stand today, for insight.

Moreover, and quite irritably, Vera Politica often repeats a disagreement with environmentalism, perhaps his dumbest, most ignorant opinion yet. Not only is environmentalism covered by intelligently Engels," but "working class" delusions over environmentalism is their most degenerate myopia yet: the Global South suffers tremendously because of Global Warming and for Vera Politica to espouse the bourgeois dismissal of the working world's sufferings more than justifies censoring Vera Politica as a reactionary unfit for anything short of an oppositional marker when revolution does come. He romanticizes a reactionary and ignorant soi-disant 'working class,' and it's our duty, as the Left, to silence his clarion for bourgeois interests.

Isolating anything of merit here is quite difficult. But my anti-environmentalism is not a rejection of Global Warming - that is nonsense. Global warming is a reality and a clear scientific consensus. However, environmentalist philosophy is, in principle, anti-marxist - as is any distinction between nature and man as it is made by liberal environmentalism. In fact, it is our control over nature that marks the animal from the human and, in many respects, it is this creative principle that set them apart and was of principle importance, at least, for Marx's earlier writings. But then again, man is a part of nature and vice versa - and the idealization of environmental philosophy have created an erroneous, unscientific and dangerous distinction. Moreover, the current policies of deindustrialization are outright insane. If you are worried about the South's well-being, policies to roll back industrial development in the West is not a solution and will exacerbate global starvation and underproduction. The solution to global warming is nuclear energy, relocating production to areas with predictable climatic effects, etc etc (and this cannot happen in an economic organization with privatized distribution). But who the hell cares about this, it is in many respects irrelevant to the central point at issue.

It really doesn't matter how much you want to put utopian images of certain people in your mind as representing the working-class culture. Your father is a foreman, in other words, a member of middle management within a company. He is used as a tool used by the employer to ensure employees perform the proper job.

Increasingly lower management as manufacturing processes are being taken over (in strategic planning) by 'white collar' management. Thus, more appropriately, office management is middle management, while floor foremen look more like simple line management (i.e. leads but non-unionized). The point, however, was his identification as a member of the working class (perhaps more so because of the erroneous distinction between 'blue' and 'white' collar work, or perhaps because he spent the most part of his life as a general worker on the line). The anecdote was only used to emphasize identification - this is not an isolated case. More specifically, he realized, in particular, his actual task as a working task (as others with university degrees take up office work and set orders and production quotas). I agree that whatever level of management we are concerned with and whether it be white or blue collar is still a working class, but I was emphasizing which segments of the working class actually identify themselves as a working class. It is not uncommon to see foremen gaining salaries of 40-50k, being non-unionized but identifying themselves as workers whereas as office employees with an irrelevant B.A. degree earning 30-40k do not. This is quite common. And this is not an idealization, he was overtly hostile to the label 'middle class'. Moreover, this was a particular case to emphasize identification, not to substantiate the point I was making. I do not consider the working class conservative because my father was, but rather because of an extensive interaction with both young and old working class people. I will admit that this may be isolated to Montreal's East-End which has a unique and particular dynamic within its working class - but I have yet seen conscious working individuals, in general, overtly embrace a form of liberal hedonism at an older age.

I still don't see your point. Just because your grasping at culture of a specific group of people doesn't suggest that all working-class members who are conscious of class relations have cultural values related to conservatism (anti-hedonistic culture). Just look at the short history of the working-class and pre-working-class people. For the most part, they accepted the changes in their lives, they may have fought against it, but in the end, they became integrated in the socio-economic structure of society. In other words, their cultural values transformed into that of the structure of society. I just don't see why it is acceptable in Marxism to suggest we transform all values to those of the working-class, who can be equally reactionary, no matter the understanding of class conciousness. Just because the working-class culture has been molded by capitalism, doesn't mean that Marxism should bend over backwards to potential reactionary philosophies that accumulated by this molding.

Eauz I agree with you, all cultural form are both parametrically determined and structured by the prevalent economic conditions and, moreover, reciprocally effects those same economic conditions. This is why I do not argue there is an essential working class ethic or value. Nor do I argue that we should transform current policies or the social structure to mimic these cultural norms. I am not sure what I would want a socialist transition to look like or, rather, what a socialist policy in terms of culture would look like. What I am suggesting, in particular, is a word of caution to young Marxists - that liberal values tend not to resonate with members of the working class (or at least the segments I have identified). Thus, Marxists tend to be alienated from this segment - a characteristically important segment - because they tend to represent values more common with liberal intellectualism. However, that being said, I think you would agree that Marxists have already assumed capitalist culture, i.e. liberal values (for the most part and nearly exclusively for all 'young' Marxists).It seems Marxists either put forth hedonistic values or non-hedonistic ones (it is non sensible to claim that they have 'transcendent' values or culture)- so I guess my point is that Marxists should transform from hedonistic tendencies to non-hedonistic ones (I don't think this is true of serious, committed, organized and experienced, mature, Marxists - but it is certainly the case for youngsters). I guess what I am arguing is this: certain ethical commitments should not be associated with Marxism, i.e. environmentalism, feminism, pro-choice, pro-life, multiculturalism, etc. This is not to say that they are all explicitly anti-Marxist (although I would make this argument for feminist analysis and multiculturalism and some forms of environmentalism) but only that they are not Marxist (i.e. they are ethical concerns divorced from Marxist analysis).

I have to go, but will edit this post or use another post to respond further.
I will be editing and posting in an odd, disjunctive way so bear with me - I want to avoid making more posts.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Sorry, just a quick question VP, are you opposed to all forms of hedonism or is a more Epicurean form more acceptable?

[Zyx]

Well thanks for that Zyx

Well, I never said that you were right then.

Your argument seems to be (and correct me if I am wrong here) that we can reject the conclusion I made concerning the first (i.e. concerning the dispensibility of feminism, race theory, etc. etc. in our theoretical analysis of oppression)

Much of sexism, racism and homophobia are without economics. Le Rouge has just pointed this out. How does one argue anti-miscegenation or only educating men in class analysis? Certainly one can claim that class coincides with some hand waves or another, but it's the case that these identities are, in fact, independent of class. Even you, who has written that woman ought not distinguish herself from worker, impressed in your "anti-hedonism" that woman ought to be separate from man. You also emphasize oftentimes your ethnic background and how it has had some importance independent of class. For any historical analysis would reveal that not only were poor Italians harassed, but wealthy ones too: it's not reducible to class.

I'd agree that one ought strongest be anti-Capitalist, but to unquestioningly sustain the Western thought that gave Capitalism birth would be stationary at best.

Moreover, the use of ' marks that somehow insinuates that a foreman, given the context of today's manufacturing process, is somehow 'less' working class than any other represents only a complete disassociation, on your part, with work in manufacturing centers. Moreover, this perception isn't limited to this anecdote - and the cases are abound where workers in traditional 'blue collar' sections tend to appropriate conservative values.

There has been analysis concerning the class consciousness of workers, and the results suggests that your idealization of a certain soi-disant worker's group is in fact your idealization of a more pro-Bourgeois group. One such analysis is by the Weberian Marxist (Neo-Marxist) Erik Olin Wright. See 11.6 "A brief note on class, race, gender and consciousness." Table 11.2, also, shows that the United States, at least, has significant demographical impacts on class consciousness (or anticapitalism.) And, the race and gender divide refute your theories of class being substitute of both race and gender. This is just one of many supporting studies.

But I must, once again, clarify a misconception (shared by many who are arguing here). The idea of a 'conservative culture' seems to be used quite differently - all I meant by 'conservative culture' or 'conservative values' is simply a life-style that is often antithetical to cultural hedonism.

You're conservative in the traditional sense, not in the 'anti-hedonism' sense, and worse you're aloof to that which you condemn. If not then why isolate environmentalism? Why isolate feminism? I admit that bourgeois feminism has a sucky theoretical base, but I was once a bourgeois feminist University activist and looking back at my group's small college achievements, among many small things, we closed down some misogynistic magazine and we made costly rape kits free. What's hedonistic about this? Further, if anything, your anti-environmentalism is hedonistic. Methinks you are not being critical of your communities' beliefs for your own personal reasons. Pollution for profit, however, is nothing that any Leftist ought to espouse and environmentalism is an instrumental stance against capitalism.

The Western tradition is far superior in its intellectual progress than any other intellectual tradition

The Western tradition in a nutshell is slavery and most of it's respectable ideas have been toward abolitionism. You romanticize the West, as per Western instruction.

Western tradition and European culture has fostered the most progressive forms of knowledge, production, technology and social organization.

You ignore the Ancients and underestimate the influence of gun powder. Moreover, you seem completely unaware of non-Western civilizations. Timbuktu, the town of Kumbi and the Mandinka Empire are legitimate examples of non-Western progressed societies. Some in Africa had women leaders, like the Yoruba, and soldiers, in Sotho and Dahomey. There were also stateless societies with means against nationalism such as age-group education and so forth. Even without Africa, there are good examples. The Scottish, though not in the Western canon for this, had done direct democracy before Latin conversion. It is quite true when some say that Western civilization just means (White) Domination. Many people can organize brilliantly without the need of the Bible or whatever else makes the West 'unique.'

It has, paradoxically, also produced the most culturally hedonistic and disturbed forms of individualism. It is the western tradition that gave us Marxism and modern social science - without which this conversation would make little sense.

You misunderstand. Marxism can only work in a Capitalist society. It's not a good thing that the West gives us Marxism for it means that the West has messed up.

I should repeat the sentiments of Kimmel. You are wrong if you think that you're anti-hedonism is conservatism. For prior to the 'man as household' that you so wrongly espouse was 'priest as head of household.' To be 'conservative' would be to push for the priest in one's home. Everything else is just another delusion of Capitalism and Western tripe. A tripe which class analysis is ignoring and is thus making its analysis less strong than it ought to be. Vera Politica, are you familiar with "the Male gaze?" I believe that John Berger's "Ways of Seeing would be a good investment on your part to see that there is 'more' when it comes to analysis and deconstruction.

Edit:

But my anti-environmentalism is not a rejection of Global Warming - that is nonsense.

Ah, your anti-environmentalism is anti-de-industrialization? I usually associate the environmentalist with green solutions, much like you've proposed. Nevertheless, it's neither clear how de-industrialization is hedonistic nor why you'd, say, be against regulations and other anti-bourgeois currents. For instance, why would your know many who are anti-environmentalist or be anti-environmentalist? Man above nature sounds fine, but the reality is that this espousal breeds man destroying nature.

but I have yet seen conscious working individuals, in general, overtly embrace a form of liberal hedonism at an older age.

Like a fourth of Western female children and a fifth of Western male children report sexual abuse. No one is open about this. The largest grossing pornography today is child pornography and it's about a fifth of all internet pornography.

Come on! Your observations were superficial and in light of the volume of academia, meaningless.

[Eauz]

I guess what I am arguing is this: certain ethical commitments should not be associated with Marxism, i.e. environmentalism, feminism, pro-choice, pro-life, multiculturalism, etc.

So that we are clear, I've always been in support of this philosophy that you've argued in this thread since the start. My only problem was in regard to your definition of the working-class culture. I think we've both made ourselves clear, so I'm not sure how much more to discuss on that. However, with regard to the quote above, working-class members, those who are class concious or we assume they are, do support some of the above mentioned ethical commitments, such as pro-choice, pro-life and even feminism. It just re-enforced my idea that we should not connect directly to such a culture.

I will agree with you that office employees themselves often don't view themselves as working-class but middle-class, however, I feel it is somewhat alienating to certain members of the white collar, who view themselves as part of the class. I think though, on of the major problems with that is that most office jobs are not easy to develop unions, as opposed to factories, so it may play a part in encourating class-conciousness.

[Vera Politica]

Much of sexism, racism and homophobia are without economics.

Consequently they are not forms of oppression.

For any historical analysis would reveal that not only were poor Italians harassed, but wealthy ones too: it's not reducible to class.

Harassment is not the same thing as oppression.

but I was once a bourgeois feminist University activist

I don't mean to collapse in triviality and ad hominems, but this statement does, indeed, explain A LOT.

environmentalism is an instrumental stance against capitalism.

quite the opposite. environmentalism has created lucrative opportunities for capital, it has created a consumerist sub-culture, and actually profits off unpaid labor (we all recycle shit so that they can either sell it to China or sell it right back to us). Every company in the western hemisphere is taking up environmentalist projects because it reduces costs. The idea that environmentalism is an anti-capitalist stance only indicates a liberal attitude.

The Western tradition in a nutshell is slavery and most of it's respectable ideas have been toward abolitionism. You romanticize the West, as per Western instruction.

Typical pseudo-Marxist grub. The university setting is actually condemning Western values. This is obvious with all Humanistic disciplines. History departments, for example, are getting rid of European specialists and substituting for sub-par 'specialists' in South American studies, African history, etc. If there is anyone following instruction, it is you. I am sorry to say Zyx, but you are a very typical university graduate. This is the liberal-left tendency.

Marxism can only work in a Capitalist society. It's not a good thing that the West gives us Marxism for it means that the West has messed up.

This is completely unMarxist.

For prior to the 'man as household' that you so wrongly espouse

Where the hell did you get this? Oh, I see, Zyx you have simply created a caricature. I espouse the extended household - a common occurrence and the typical household organization in the Soviet Union and most of Europe prior to the post-war construction. In doing so I am vehemently against the bourgeois nuclear family.

I usually associate the environmentalist with green solutions, much like you've proposed.

Not quite. Environmentalism is the ideology surrounding the belief in anthropogenic global warming - I do not agree with this. Thus, it intrinsically supports a policy of de-industrialization. I do not mean nuclear power to replace any of the current energy production, I encourage its use only to expand the current energy production.

Like a fourth of Western female children and a fifth of Western male children report sexual abuse. No one is open about this. The largest grossing pornography today is child pornography and it's about a fifth of all internet pornography.

Come on! Your observations were superficial and in light of the volume of academia, meaningless.

This is actually quite ironic. You open with a superficial statement and suppose it supports something substantial. I am quite confused. Moreover, the volume of academia devoted to analyzing the working class in sociology is in large part based on a very irrelevant stereotype of the worker and one that persists from the 19th century. In fact, it is academia which has idealized the working class and I have nothing but contempt for liberal sociology.

I will agree with you that office employees themselves often don't view themselves as working-class but middle-class, however, I feel it is somewhat alienating to certain members of the white collar, who view themselves as part of the class. I think though, on of the major problems with that is that most office jobs are not easy to develop unions, as opposed to factories, so it may play a part in encourating class-conciousness.

Granted. But by and large there are few class conscious white-collar workers (except perhaps in the non-office service sector).

[Zyx]

Consequently they are not forms of oppression.

It's been a while since I've thought of it, but it relates to the OP and that is why I brought it up. The question was whether with Communism would sexism, racism and homophobia persist. I was pointing out how with this Pro-Western viewpoint it would, you seem to be espousing a pro-Western viewpoint and fully careless as to whether these do persist. In a sense, this discourse justifies why separate movements would exist; for many a women would be put off if after fighting in squadrons, assuming that they were allowed to fight, they were told that education were solely for men.

I don't mean to collapse in triviality and ad hominems, but this statement does, indeed, explain A LOT.

Once upon a time, I was young. Still, what we did was nothing worth condemning. Your professed hatred for feminism shows your ignorance of what feminists do.

The idea that environmentalism is an anti-capitalist stance only indicates a liberal attitude.

Environmentalism is more than recycling. Anti-pollution is environmentalism and your espousal of nuclear--as opposed to coal--shows that it's supportable. Although, it appears that you may just support nuclear for energy output, but regardless it's still not coal.

This is the liberal-left tendency.

The world is more than Europe: Angola, China, Mozambique, Cuba, et al. have been stages for socialism and were it not for Western influences, they'd have been more successful. I believe that you are in a bubble, and worse in a delusion that you'd think the West 'good' for the world.

anthropogenic global warming - I do not agree with this.

Then you are in Wonderland.

You've a blinding love for the West. You're quite deep in the Wonderland lies. I recommend you review that article "Capitalism in Wonderland." You'd learn about Global Warming and how Western academics are creating a fabrication with regard this 'myth' of 'man-made.'

Here's but a snippet:

The failure of economic models to count the human and ecological costs of climate change should not surprise us. Bourgeois economics has a carefully cultivated insensitivity to human tragedy (not to mention natural catastrophe) that has become almost the definition of “man’s inhumanity to man.” Thomas Schelling, a recipient of the Bank of Sweden’s Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and one of Lomborg’s eight experts in the Copenhagen Consensus, is known for arguing that since the effects of climate change will fall disproportionately on the poorer nations of the global South, it is questionable how much in the way of resources the rich nations of the global North should devote to the mitigation of climate trends. (Schelling in his Copenhagen Consensus evaluation ranked climate change at the very bottom of world priorities.)9 Here one can’t help but be reminded of Hudson Institute planners, who in the process of proposing a major dam on the Amazon in the early 1970s contended in effect—as one critic put it at the time—that “if the flooding drowns a few tribes who were not evacuated because they were supposed to be on higher ground, or wipes out a few forest species, who cares?”10 Similarly, while chief economist of the World Bank, Lawrence Summers, now Obama’s top economic advisor, wrote an internal World Bank memo in which he stated: “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.” He justified this by arguing: “The measurement of the costs of health-impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health-impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country of the lowest wages.”11

This is actually quite ironic.

Not exactly. My point is that you've given a cursory gloss over the lives of those around you. How is it that you find yourself capable of making statements on them? Private lives are quite different from public lives.

[Eauz]

Granted. But by and large there are few class conscious white-collar workers (except perhaps in the non-office service sector).

See, this is where you're generalising. Equally enough, I can do the same thing, as I ride the bus with people who work in factories who's goals and dreams are that of liberalism. They support many of the ideologies of liberalism, want to constantly make more money, buy cars and other things. They support chauvinism and other reactionary philosophies. They are the working-class you speak of who have no clue or connection to the class. I think it's almost impossible to bring about broad generalisations.

To be fair, I'll agree that in the office, there are a lot of people who are no class concious but it's a falsehood to assume the opposite.

Just Some Extra Reads about the Proletariat in the U.S.A.

[Vera Politica]

I don't have time to respond to both Zyx and Eauz, but will edit more in the coming days.

One thing:
Eauz, the article you linked actually reads:

The characteristics that distinguish this class from the petty-bourgeois strata of wage-earners are its separation from the responsibilities of management, the relatively greater weight of manual labor in its work, the relatively smaller amount of education required to carry out its work, and, for the great majority, lower wages and worse working conditions.

I stopped reading here. This is a clear effect of liberal sociology and it quite sad. The idea that management or professionals are 'petty-bourgeois' is a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of capitalism. While management was, once, a petty-bourgeois or even fully bourgeois position (as it was with professionals), it is no longer the case as managers and professionals have become wage-labor - in fact the proletarianisation of management and professionals is an important dynamic that cannot be ignored. It is common knowledge that a construction worker makes more money than a factory foreman or even tenured assistant professors (at least in Quebec). It is also the case that, as it stands, a lot of manual labor that requires little education pays higher salaries (coal miners in Quebec can make up to 80-90k a year) than a full tenured professor, or other clerical work that generally requires a Bachelors degree. But, I think you agree with this Eauz.

[Eauz]

I stopped reading here. This is a clear effect of liberal sociology and it quite sad. The idea that management or professionals are 'petty-bourgeois' is a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of capitalism. While management was, once, a petty-bourgeois or even fully bourgeois position (as it was with professionals), it is no longer the case as managers and professionals have become wage-labor - in fact the proletarianisation of management and professionals is an important dynamic that cannot be ignored.

Then why are you trying to suggest to me that those working in factories and such are more class-concious than those proletariat in other sectors of the economy? I just don't buy your argument, because the propletariat is so large in size and character and has been transformed by bourgeois culture in numerous ways.

Is your own argument not just a product of liberal sociology, because everything you've presented sounds exactly to that of what you quoted and stopped reading.

[Le Rouge]

Managers and foremen hold a distinct position between the working class and the bourgeoisie and while I agree that they have been "proletarianized" in that they now perform productive wage-labor, their primary relationship to the means of production is not the transformation of use-values into commodities but to oversee/enforce the maximization of this transformation.

[Vera Politica]

Then why are you trying to suggest to me that those working in factories and such are more class-concious than those proletariat in other sectors of the economy? I just don't buy your argument, because the propletariat is so large in size and character and has been transformed by bourgeois culture in numerous ways.

Is your own argument not just a product of liberal sociology, because everything you've presented sounds exactly to that of what you quoted and stopped reading.

I'm not sure what they have to do with the other. My claim was that there is a tendency for the blue-collar workforce to self-identify as a working class (and this would include even line management positions in the blue-collar force, i.e. foreman and leads - if there are any leads). Class consciousness and class position are distinct and separate. The working class consists of anywhere between 70-90% of the population, but my claim is that the tendency to be class-conscious (i.e. to self-identify as the working class) is strongest in the blue-collar sectors.

How does this, in any way, sound like what I quoted?

Managers and foremen hold a distinct position between the working class and the bourgeoisie and while I agree that they have been "proletarianized" in that they now perform productive wage-labor, their primary relationship to the means of production is not the transformation of use-values into commodities but to oversee/enforce the maximization of this transformation.

An erroneous, unmarxist distinction. Whether managerial, manual or intellectual labor - all are constitutive and necessary in the production process. An engineer or machinist does no less in the production process than does a manager or a general line worker. Then again, you comment, in some ways, exemplifies a misunderstanding of the manufacturing process - I think you are stuck in the early 20th century days when a foreman was middle or even upper management. Even this, however, is an erroneous distinction when it comes to the role in a production process - as middle or upper management (usually white-collar) is as necessary for the production process as the blue-collar force on the production floor (i.e. highly-paid skilled blue-collar labor - machinists and specialists and sometimes engineers, as well as the foreman and general line-worker, both of whom are paid significantly less than specialists or middle/upper management). Moreover a key distinction between a foreman and middle/upper management is that a foreman comes to his/her position through years of experience as a general worker rather than following a professional education or vocation program and being hired into the position. But these distinction do not serve to distinguish between class or a disassociated role in the production process. However, they may serve as clues as to why certain segments of the working class are class conscious and other are not.

[Eauz]

but my claim is that the tendency to be class-conscious (i.e. to self-identify as the working class) is strongest in the blue-collar sectors.

As I said, all generalisations a best. You are assuming way too much in this situation.

[Vera Politica]

As I said, all generalisations a best. You are assuming way too much in this situation.

Well, where I'm from this is taken as common knowledge - but this is one thing, my distaste for the section I quoted before is another. There is no contradiction in my views.