[PTBO]

It's refreshing to hear class mentioned in political discourse- makes me want to channel to Monty Python's peasant:

Old Woman: There you go again bring class into this.
Dennis the Peasant: But that's whats it all about!!!

He's right you know...

But I have two quibbles:

Hyper-politicized!!!??!!!!!! In BC (and English-Canada) we live in a society (esp the youth) are so divorced from the poltical discourse and denuded of any sort agency to change society. Voter turnout is stunningly low because people are so fatalistic, apathetic and consumed by living to consume. I would agrue that we are hyper de-polticized particrlarly compared to any other area of Canadian History ie the 60s and esp. the 30s. In the BC, HST is the only issue that people have made any sort of reponse and that has been pathetic. There is way more important issues at stake. Hell there hasn't been a min wage increase since Campbell got elected. Jobs are major issue- wages and unionization has to be much higher thats something voting wont do a thing for- young ppl have to get politized and fight toe and nail for unionization (which since is class based is the only real democratic institution with any potential in our society). I mean, it desperate now- You get seasonal work in forestry and oilngas and then beg for fish factory jobs to help out on EI but its rough in rural BC and people just accept it. But I guess it'll have to get alot more desperate to change things.

Secondly, a fusion between working class and conservatives and the educated middle class and liberals!!!!!!!!!!/?????????!!!
That makes no sense. At least in a Canadian context. Coming from BC you know that the NDP are still (at least federally in the BC sense) kinda sorta working class party and cater to the working class. I mean personally I vote for my class so not voting for the NDP is just impossible for me. Certianly I meet workers with knee jerk reactionary sentiments but rarely do I feel there is some sort of bond or loyalty to the Conservative Party- mostly just deep distrust. The elites have always held the power within the Liberal and Conservative party so they have always governed to the benefit of the upper class. Sop is handed down to try and keep the masses in check and the whole system goes rolling on.

I will agree with that Canadian media has a tendency to present one happy classless society which is bizarre but perhaps understandable since it is so pervasive that we just take it for granted.

[JJ]

(Apologies for anyone not from British Columbia. But you'll get the main idea regardless)

I think the NDP, historically, had working-class credentials, and in British Columbia they are starting to reclaim some credibility on that front as a result of their opposition to the Liberal government's tax hikes on food and gas, which do represent a pretty brazen squeeze on the lower classes to create an economic climate more favorable to the interests of big business. Maybe in the long term the Liberals are doing what needs to be done for the betterment of all, but from a strictly class-based analysis, Premier Campbell is clearly servicing the sector of BC society that regards him most favorably and exercises the strongest pull over his administration.

However! Unionization in British Columbia, and Canada in general, is most certainly not a working-class phenomena anymore. The vast, vast majority of unionized workers are now public sector employees of some sort, notably teachers and government staff workers (ie; career bureaucrats) who are drawn from the educated middle class. An overly unionized, middle class public sector hurts the economic interests of Canadians employed elsewhere in a number of different ways, most notably by making public services more expensive. Unionization equals higher salaries, which in the public sector results in higher taxes to pay for them.

The NDP has become too much of a servant to the interests of unionized, middle class professionals, who basically want to provide crappy services to the public and get paid ever more for doing so. The NDP wants to be the party allied with organized labor AND the party of the working-class. But it can't be both anymore, because the two groups are increasingly distinct, with very different interests.

[PTBO]

Maybe part of the problem here is the idea of class. So since a teacher is "educated" he/she is a thus middle class. I teacher tops off around 80K a year and it takes a couple of decades to get to that. But someone with just high school making 60K -100k or more depending on experience on the boats, or the rigs or in the woods is working class. Or a unionzied teacher is making 60k and a unionized millworker is making 60k then who is in what class?

The main difference between unionized workers and non-unionized workers is job security and benefits. That's all part of competing with the private sector for talent. But thats an argument for another day.

Back to class- I think its valid to question whether there even is a working class. Because part of the definition of class (I believe) is that the class is aware of itself. Hence the whole basis of Marxist theory. When the working class became aware of their status as producers then they will (presumably) be move to seize the means of production for themselves. Today most people either accept their lot, believe themselves part of the middle class, or believe that their economic position is temporary. In short there is no class consciousness certianly not anywhere near the 30s where you get hundreds of British Columbian miners and loggers fight alongside fellow workers (in Spain of all places) for revolution/ anti-facsism.

But if we look at class less in the terms of annual income, and education (which I think has minimal effect on class status) and more in terms of access to capital then the field of working class opens up quite a bit. But like I said before it is all about class.

[Psudo]

The only thing I really know about the Spanish revolution is that it's what infected George Orwell into the sadistic, life-destroying cynicism evident in Animal Farm and 1984.

As far as a lack of class consciousness, I have to totally agree. I barely ever think about what class I'm in unless it comes up in political debate, and though I don't make a whole lot of money I support policies that aid the wealthy because I expect to be wealthy (not Gates rich, but well off) someday. That confirms your claims about class unconsciousness and the temporary economic position.

The conservative stance is that class consciousness is a tool used by left-wing authoritarians to divide the people into special interests that can then be "bought" with targeted welfare programs or other giveaways. If you give everyone a targeted program they'll think they're better off than they'd have been without it, even if the sum of all citizens are worse off for having to pay for all of those gifts. By this reasoning, class "consciousness" is susceptibility to deceit.

[JJ]

Class is not just a financial thing, though, and to focus on it in strictly economic terms is to misunderstand the deeper, modern significance of the idea. Class is also a very strong social-cultural phenomenon connected to all sorts of other indicators of one's identity and status in society, especially education, occupation, manners, and appearance.

My original point in my original essay about FOX News (remember that?) was that FOX, and the Republican Party establishment it increasingly represents, has become too closely aligned with a sort of trashy, ignorant "prole" culture associated with a particular class of poor, rural, uneducated people. Regardless of how valid their arguments are, this sort of class-identity and class-consciousness for conservatives is not helpful, for it is not attractive to the sort of ambitious, creative, talented, intelligent people the Republican Party needs.

When you watch CNN I think it's much easier to get the vibe that "this is what America's winners are watching" where as when you watch FOX the impression is "this is what losers watch." I'm being very crass and blunt here, but the point is that identity matters, and Republicans have hitched themselves to an unimpressive class of people as their brand identity.

[N_Fiddledog]

JJ wrote:

Class is not just a financial thing, though, and to focus on it in strictly economic terms is to misunderstand the deeper, modern significance of the idea. Class is also a very strong social-cultural phenomenon connected to all sorts of other indicators of one's identity and status in society, especially education, occupation, manners, and appearance.

My original point in my original essay about FOX News (remember that?) was that FOX, and the Republican Party establishment it increasingly represents, has become too closely aligned with a sort of trashy, ignorant "prole" culture associated with a particular class of poor, rural, uneducated people. Regardless of how valid their arguments are, this sort of class-identity and class-consciousness for conservatives is not helpful, for it is not attractive to the sort of ambitious, creative, talented, intelligent people the Republican Party needs.

When you watch CNN I think it's much easier to get the vibe that "this is what America's winners are watching" where as when you watch FOX the impression is "this is what losers watch." I'm being very crass and blunt here, but the point is that identity matters, and Republicans have hitched themselves to an unimpressive class of people as their brand identity.

And whether you're right, or wrong I would encourage you and yours to continue thinking that way. Keep telling the larger audience they're stupid. We need more of what we saw in Virginia, New Jersey, and this week in Massachusetts. My theory is the larger audience will disagree with you, and not think well of the general elitist mindset which manufactures that opinion.

One of the most repeated critiques on the campaign of Martha Coakley concerned her arrogance. Apparently the electorate was just smart enough to notice it.

[Psudo]

Um... N_Fiddledog, JJ is not a liberal. He's a capital-C Conservative. Also, as a Canadian, he is explicitly not part of the Virginia/New Jersey/Massachusetts pattern of Democrats losing ground in New England. He and his are allies of us and ours (American conservatives).

In fact, you're rather confirming his theory by reacting emotionally to perceived elitism while ignoring whether he's right or wrong.

Finally, he's not telling the larger audience that they're stupid, but rather he's telling the party elite that they're playing to the stupid rather than trying to persuade the smart. The latter tend to oppose Republicanism and conservatism, and rather effectively; think of the liberal establishment among education, non-Fox news, and upper-echelon career government jobs (the specialists who run government agencies regardless of who is elected). These are educated people, and these are liberal people. Similarly educated Republicans are getting more and more scarce -- where are the William F. Buckley, Jr.s, the Milton Friedmans, the Friedrich Hayeks, the Irving Kristols, and the Leo Straussesses' of this century?

If there really isn't a new generation of conservative intellectuals, the conservatism of Reagan's generation will pass away within a decade of the last of these intellectuals. The Reagan Revolution will only stick if there is an intellectual argument behind it, continually fighting the liberal establishment in their own realm. Who is doing that today?

[N_Fiddledog]

Point taken Psudo. And you're right, I did just react to the last post without reading the rest of the thread for context, and I did just say to myself, "Oh, here we go again. Another pumped up Lib hiding behind pseudo-intellectualism, and a phony claim of non-partisan, objectivity. I mean if you're gonna say Fox sucks, pass the cappucino, just say it."

My apologies to JJ. Yeah, I've heard the "We need another Buckley" lament. Heard it on Fox actually.

OK, I'm almost caught up now. So the reincarnation of Buckley comes along. You're the programmer for Fox. You dump Beck, and replace him with the Buckley clone. This is a good move why? Who benefits? Why do they matter more than the massive audience Fox already has? What did I miss?

[Psudo]

I doubt a Buckley clone would want to replace Beck. The original Buckley started National Review; the clone would probably similarly build it's own path.

But why is that path important? Because it speaks to a difference audience. Rush speaks to middle America. Beck speaks to the less politically inclined. Our Buckley clone would speak to the more politically inclined, the kind of conservative who fact checks Rush and who, despite sharing his ideology, frequently face-palms when listening to his show. The conservative movement generally benefits from an intellectual, university-overeducated egghead argument to counter the frequent university-staple liberal egghead arguments.

I don't see why the benefit wouldn't be apparent. We'd have everything we have now, plus a stronger intellectual basis.

[N_Fiddledog]

Very well then, let's assume Buckley II sets up his own forum to air views of this aspired to conservative intellectual class; say something similar to the Breitbart new media network, only this one's just for conservative braniacs. Is there a qualitative judgment here? Is Fox now bad, and Buckley II good. Is it now four legs bad, two legs better? Does Buckley II now call upon the Fox crowd to reject the farm? Is that the hope?

Or is it now just enough to strut about, and say " hey, look we have a let's-pretend-we're-smart" club just like the left has CNN.

Are we caring which is better, or are we pondering if one of these suggested classes can, or should exist with the other, or are we simply saying 'hey look, here's an interesting phenomena' - class divide by perceived intellect?

[Zipperfish]

The class issue is international now--basically a nation of human-rights deprived peasants in China supplying the rich in the in Europe and North America with all their goods. The struggle in the US would be more a kin to earls being pissed off with the dukes.

[PTBO]

Sure= like I said I was arguing with some of your smaller points rather then the FOX news one.

But since you restated it Im not sure that I agree with FOX viewers as an unimpressive class people. The best (and maybe only) mainstream (i.e. not academic) analysis of America's white/republican working class is Deer Hunting with Jesus with Joe Bageant. He is a leftist but lives in his hometown with is the absolute typical rust belt dirt poor Sorthern town in Virginia. Its a pretty engaging book and I highly recommand it if your interested in that kinda stuff.

The American working class has been shat on for a long time. I'm a proud worker and I'm would like nothing better to see the American working class attain some measure of political power- the Republican-Democrat machines are not even close as what is needed.

Psudo wrote:

The conservative stance is that class consciousness is a tool used by left-wing authoritarians to divide the people into special interests that can then be "bought" with targeted welfare programs or other giveaways. If you give everyone a targeted program they'll think they're better off than they'd have been without it, even if the sum of all citizens are worse off for having to pay for all of those gifts. By this reasoning, class "consciousness" is susceptibility to deceit.

[quote[/quote]

Well it would make sense that conservatives would ignore class consciousness its a powerful weapon in creating solidarity among workers in order to challenge capital, strengthen collective bargining and influence public policy. Though personally I feel welfare programs are bit of a dead end- that is kinda of a liberal/ tory (not neoconservative Progressive Conservative in the Canadian sense) sort of thing. Keeps people in check- bread and circuses sort of thing. Socialist parties at least say that they will work for full employment with the attendant collective wage increases due the elimination of the reserve army of labour so important to keep wages in check. That said I have relied on EI like most of BCs seasonal labourers but you pay into that so its a little different.

And unrelated George Orwell was certianly bitter after the Spanish Civil War- mostly against the Cominterm and the Stalinized USSR which he felt sold out the revolution to Soviet foreign policy objectives that favoured bourgesois interests over revolutionary ones. That and he got shot thru the neck. You can read his vivid Homage to Catalonia at http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_ ... index.html.

[Psudo]

I like the idea of full employment, but I oppose government action as a means to achieve it. Getting paid to shovel snow from nowhere to nowhere or to stand in place as a fence post are both ridiculous excuses for jobs implemented by socialist full employment experiments. I have the same opinion of Obama's assertion that "green jobs" are an effective tool to fix an ever-increasing unemployment rate; namely, that if government has to create jobs by decree the jobs don't really exist.

Theoretically, anyone should be able to pick up a pen and paper and write something worth selling, or pick up a hammer and be a neighborhood handyman, or build furniture, or clean retail parking lots, fix cars, remove computer viruses, set up entertainment centers, etc, etc, but in practice it's radically rare to just build a job from nothing. I can't understand why improving employment is as hard a goal as it is in actual practice (though I have given it a shot a few failed times). I suspect it's something about the psychological separation between what a person does for a living and who that person is, a distinction that was less clear in the past and more prominent today. I don't really have a fix for it, just a nagging belief that it's wrong and shouldn't be so hard.

[BartSimpson]

JJ wrote:

You hear a lot about how fashionable the young Japanese are, how they are "miles ahead" of anything we do here. (et al)

JJ, one of the things you're experiencing is not so much that of an exposure to partisan reporting, but a cultural adjustment. The Japanese (who mostly run liberal to Communist and who eschew conservativism as a form of nationalism) are indirect and vague in how they discuss matters. The freaking Japanese won't even identify themselves when you call them on the phone and then you come back to the states where we are very direct and you have to reacclimate to the way we do things.

My point is that you are not reacting to US conservatism but to US culture in general.