Eauz, I agree to most of the extent of your analysis. What I need to make clear, however, is that I do not think there is any 'natural' characteristic of the working class, only the ideological component (i.e. the cultural component) that is expressed within the capitalist mode of production by a particular class and, then, who shares in it (so, the working class as a class exemplifies and expresses a particular culture in capitalism and so do other classes - it is common to see, however, particular individuals appropriate cultural mores not exemplified by their class). Thus, there is no 'natural conservativism' of the working class, saying something like this would be unMarxist. However, the working class, in the capitalist mode of production, marks and exemplifies conservative cultural mores - sadly, culture is in the purview of private sphere and has become only a individual market transaction (i.e. multiculturalism - read Neil Bisoondath on this) and so the cultural conventions and status quo of our society is NOT marked by working class values and, so, it is normal to see individuals even within the working class appropriate cultural norms which are not specific to their class nor rooted in their class.
That being said, hostility to welfare perks is actually rooted in the pride of one's work and expressed in the capitalist mode of production in the way that you describe (it is quite normal that this is so). And you are right about the hostility to immigrations, etc. But the fact remains this: the working class does not exemplify leftist values and norms - this is why the nonsense of liberalism does not resonate with them. Communists need to recognize this and need to uphold conservative cultural value while remaining progressive in terms of economic change.
Things like feminism, multiculturalism, etc etc do not resonate with the working class - and this is not the direction we Communists need to be moving in.
Moreover, another thing needs to be said, ALL culture is ideological, including the conservative culture of the working class. Ideology is actually inescapable, even under communism (see Althusser on this - he is dead on on this issue).
Donald wrote:Promiscuity is of no unique creation or feature of the capitalist mode of production and attempting to accuse certain classes of monopolizing promiscuity treads closely to demagoguery and moralization. It has existed under every imaginable system that has preceded capital, whether among exploiter or exploited.
Neither is racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. yet this take on specific characteristics and appropriated by certain segments in every socio-economic organization and, so, are exemplified in different ways. The same is true with promiscuity - promiscuity is sold to the working class it is not exemplified in their class as a cultural norm that emerged from their class. Promiscuity emerges from lumpenproletariat and bourgeois culture and, so, it has been taken on by this culture. "Sex and the City" is a bourgeois phenomena - the vast majority of the working class are not promiscuous, family oriented and faithful to their wives/husbands. In fact, "Sex and the City" resonates only with the youth of the working class, who have not come to exemplify the cultural mores of their class and who are dragged into the cultural marketplace of multicultural, bourgeois degradation. It doesn't resonate, however, with the mature working class.
well, the Italian/Catholic one that you grew up with in Montreal at least?
More specifically in Montreal's east-end - therefore a cultural norm that involved also an interaction with racist tendencies of the Quebecois (but they have largely come to like us ever since the Haitians started arriving in the late 80s). I grew up in a Quebecois working class neighbourhood and my cultural norms are sort of a mish-mash of my Italian and 'Quebecois' upbringing. There was a time in Quebec when the conservative working class values were asserted by the Catholic Church - but since the Quiet Revolution the French have gained positions of influence in business but Quebec (Montreal especially) has succumb to American consumerism and liberal nonsense. Multiculturalism is largely a myth in Montreal - it exists only in the gentrified core where individuals actually do not exemplify any culture of their own but, rather, have assimilated to some odd liberal-consumerist fetish. Actual 'multiculturalism' exists in Montreal's east-end where cultures are preserved through ghettofication - but it is hardly the Mosaic of the Canadian myth, it is poor, racist, hostile and violent - and being largely working class nearly all of its members (whether Haitian, Italian, Quebecois or Arab) are largely conservative.
I am not making any moral claims, I am only speaking about reality. This is why many Communists do not resonate with the working class - they are seen as kin to liberal and other leftists degenerates, so they mostly tune out and miss the core of Marxist analysis (which they largely agree with, although they do not know it).
So my point is simply this: there is no such thing as 'cultural progress' or 'progressive culture' - in the sense that the cultural norm of pettit-bourgeois intellectualism is not indicative of progress nor of the movement toward socialism (i.e. feminism, environmentalism, queer rights, multiculturalism, etc.). One can be progressive but hold on to what we call 'conservative values', at least in the way they are exemplified by the working class. We have no idea what culture will look like under communism - but it will hardly be this 'progressive' nonsense spewed by liberal-Marxists.