I want to have as non-partisan a discussion about the future of the working class as is possible on a political board. I have been appalled by the continued support for the insane and incompetent Donald Trump by members of not only the working class, but the right wing of the middle class - in my own family, no less! (Yes, even as I question whether or not the classes I'm discussing still exist, I am going to speak in terms of class, because the alternative is to fall into the mire of identity politics.)
I was motivated to write this diary after re-reading parts of Eric Hobsbawm history of the 20th century. While a die-hard Marxist until his death (at age 95) in 2012(!), Hobsbawm was widely respected and honored for his encyclopedic memory, his command of seven languages, and his ability to popularize the topic of history.
I think boomers and all succeeding generations have never experienced the penury and desperation of the pre-WW2 working class - and, more importantly, their social cohesion. It is the rise and fall of that cohesion that is at the heart of the problem of today's working classes, which are rapidly being reduced to their old condition.
I have chosen the allowed four paragraphs to highlight his take on the arc of the working class:
At the end of the 19th century the…far from homogeneous populations who earned their living in the developed countries by selling their manual labour for wages learned to see themselves as a single working class, and to regard that fact as by far the most important thing about their situation in society…They belonged, overwhelmingly, to the poor and economical insecure...what they expected and got from life was modest, and well below what the middle classes expected…They were also united by massive social segregation, by separate lifestyles or even clothing, and by the constriction of life-chances which separated them from the socially more mobile, if economically also hard-pressed, white-collar strata…
They were united finally by the central element of their life, collectivity: the domination of "us" over "I". What gave labour movements and parties their original strength was the justified conviction by workers that people such as they could not improve their lot by individual action, but only by collective action, preferably through organizations, whether by mutual aid, striking, or voting. And, conversely, that the numbers and peculiar situation of manual wage-workers put collective action within their grasp.
…working class life had to be largely public, because the private space was so inadequate. Even the housewife shared in the public life of market, street, and neighboring parks. Young men and women had to dance and court outside. Men socialized in "public houses". Until the radio…all forms of entertainment beyond the private party had to be public…From football match to public meeting or holiday outing, life was something experienced, for most pleasurable purposes, en masse.
During the "golden decades" (1950-1980) almost all elements (of working class cohesiveness) were undermined. The combination of secular boom, full employment, and a society of genuine mass consumption utterly transformed the lives of working class people in the developing countries…By the standards of their parents…they were no longer poor. Lives immeasurably more prosperous than (most) had ever expected were privatized by both money technology and the logic of the market: television made it unnecessary to go to the football match, just as TV and videos have made it unnecessary to go to the cinema, or telephones to gossip with friends on the piazza or at the market. Trade unionists or party members who had once turned up for branch meetings or public political occasions because, among other things, they were also a form of diversion or entertainment, could now think of more attractive ways of spending their time, unless abnormally militant. Prosperity and privatization broke up what poverty and collectivity in the public place had welded together.
- Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes- A history of the world, 1914-1991. (pp 305-7)
Having lived and written until age 95, Hobsbawm commands a sweep of history that makes most of us look like newborns. Trying to wrap my head around his narrative of the rise and fall of the working class made me realize that all we discuss here is but a moment on a historical time scale. What we take as "normal" is merely what is current.
There is a lot to ponder from brief snip.
Why, as the working class disintegrated, did it polarize into such an extremely right wing phenomenon? Since the unions always contained a racist, sexist, anti-intellectual wing, is it just that the destruction of the organization let lose the always-present troglodytes?
How were workers talked into hating their own organizations (unions), in much the same manner as they were talked into hating the government? Yeah, I know about corruption, like the Teamsters. But what about unions like IBEW, CWA - unions of technologically skilled people - unions that survived the rustbelt destruction of heavy industry? Why does the working class not loudly support the service workers unions and the $15 minimum wage?
What is the difference between the working class and the "precariat"? Who supported Brexit? The working class? The precariat? Both?
Can the 99% (which must, by definition, contain the working class) ever recover solidarity in a world mediated and controlled by corporate media, such as Facebook; and the virtual marketplace of Amazon? How do people stop sticking their heads into their smartphones long enough to get organized?
What does the success of Sanders' slogan "Us, not me." say about the state of cohesiveness of American citizens?
The question that is foremost in my mind is:
What does "the working class" mean in 2016? And, how do progressives think about and work with "the working class" to defeat the 1%?
I don't have any answers. I am trying to start a polite discussion.
Any takers?