Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Guys I've got a good starter for an actual discussion maybe. I've only recently been getting into my Mark Fisher (yeah I know) and something struck me, both while reading his stuff (mainly referring to the Vampire Castle essay here) and secondary literature discussing it. Some of it, including parts of Fisher's own writing, sound an awful lot like petty infighting to me, but there was an overarching theme that emerged which I really resonated with:
The left of today has lost sight of class analysis and this has paralysed it and made it easy prey for manipulation. The main reason for this (and that's what excited me) is that people aren't so much rejecting the notion of class, but that nobody knows what the word is supposed to actually mean in our world of today. We need a new and modern definition of "class" that makes it obvious that class is at the heart of ALL struggles for equality and justice.
So, what could that definition be? Or do you disagree with the argument because a) you've got a perfectly good definition already or b) class is dead to you?
I'm asking because I do agree with the argument but am not sure about what a good modern definition could be.
(Also wasn't there a thread on here a while ago that exemplifies this problem perfectly where one guy bashed on another guy about class and racism?)
This is reminding me of Thomas Frank (of the Baffler) and his book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F_(book)
Thomas Frank is a sort of Social Democrat, but his point is applicable to this discussion. He basically argues that Fox News (etc.) have effectively and successfully redefined the word "class" in an effort to target and dismantle real class solidarity. Its been a while since I've read it so excuse me if I am a little off base...
He argued that conservative media had basically redefined class to purely (superficial) aesthetic qualities. They made it so to their Fox News viewers: class is NOT your economic position as a worker, but instead class is your consumer tastes and lifestyle choices.
ie) "Regular People" drink coffee and beer, "The Elites" drink lattes and wine. "Regular People" drive pickup trucks and Hummers, "The Elites" drive hybrid/electric cars. "Regular People" go to church and love their family, "The Elites" get abortions.
Its basically trying to make it so instead of class being about your economic position, class is instead about the non-traditional quality of your lifestyle and consumer habits. So even if two people are both making $50k a year, depending on their lifestyle and purchasing habits, they are a "Liberal Elite" or a regular person.
And this then applies across real economic positions. So essentially, a multi-millionaire conservative politician or TV personality is not an "Elite", BUT people who make $50k a year that get Starbucks lattes ARE a "Liberal Elit e".
You can really see this backwards mentality has expanded in the 18 years since the book. Especially with Tucker Carlson (comes from a VERY wealthy family), Trump, and all the other rich conservatives that do this fake "populism" that rallies against "The Elites" and Amazon in bad faith, while actually just hammering home social "culture war" issues to further divide conservatives from understanding class solidarity. They have no interest in actually taking on Amazon and billionaires, they just use it as a carrot on the end of the rope to double down on culture war outrage, and redirect viewers away from true class solidarity.
So again, rather than class being its true essence of workers vs. owners (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie) they have transformed it for their viewers to instead be conservatives. vs liberals.
Its definitely true, and as leftists we have to identify and address this dynamic when talking with centrists/conservatives (heck, and liberals... since they also have their own version of this to a certain extent).
I’d say this shift in what class means is not only happening on the right/conservative side, but also on the left side.
With the rise of a left movement that is more on the idealistic side, materialistic analysis is taking the backseat. It seems nowadays it’s more about an identity politics standpoint towards class and classism instead of discussing who owns the means of production and what this means for everyone selling their time and body in order to survive.
Not trying to equate left and right here - just stating that it seems the world has taken a turn away from viewing it through a materialistic lense.
Btw: great thread. Haven’t read everything, yet. Left wing guy with a strong leaning towards Adorno, Freud, Marx and Debord here. Although I’m not shy of reading Deleuze, Foucault or Bourdieu
It seems you think left and right just means Democrat and Republican. One of the left's biggest criticisms of the Democratic party has been it's reliance on identity politics. In turn one of the moderates biggest criticisms of the left is that it's class reductionist. They used that very criticism on Sanders, who's at best a moderate leftist, despite him being endorsed by the person that introduced the concept of intersectionality to academia. But to be straight up about it, "no war but the class war" is not a winning message because the class war has color lines and gender lines. That's just the way it is, and trust me, you'll lose your best allies if you overlook that. The Democratic party's use of identity politics is just a cooptation of intersectionality. Intersectionality includes class analysis, it comes from it, is an extension of it. It is rooted in material analysis. There is a vast difference between it and identity politics which is why the l eft criticizes identity politics heavily. And rightly so because it's empty rhetoric and is often used to defeat leftist candidates.
You are jumping to conclusions far too quickly here. I couldn’t care less about republicans & democrats. I’m not from the US and my interest in marxism is universal and beyond national politics.
Second, if you take Marx paradigm "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" there is no need for identity politics. This already means the end of discrimination based on gender, race and whatnot. This doesn’t mean, that we don’t need to speak up, when discrimination now occurs. It is super important that we fight for equality. but this is not a means to an end. This is a symptom of capitalism.
Identity politics is an idealistic dead end. In the end it could also just mean that we just have a super diverse team of upper management.
@wane Brady exactly
You didn't understand a single thing I wrote. I made an explicit distinction between the material analysis of class distinctions within race and gender and identity politics, because they are different things. When you write this:
This doesn’t mean, that we don’t need to speak up, when discrimination now occurs. It is super important that we fight for equality.
that is in essence what intersectionality is. How do you know it now occurs implicitly without a material analysis? You can say "to each according" all you'd like, but that's not an analysis. You have to know whether or not you're actually doing it instead of just saying it If you equate that with simple identity politics...that's about as far from a Marxist understanding of the situation as you can get.
I don't know what left you are talking about that is moving towards identity politics given that I'm not sure whether or not you understand any of the terms under discussion. Who is the left? The left of what country? What do you mean by identity politics?
What I can tell you for certain is that we will have no chance at establishing class solidarity based on class alone. There are trust issues, and the reasons are obvious from a Marxist perspective.