Labor Day was a counter-revolutionary exercise in its very foundation during the administration of Grover Cleveland. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day. Revolutionary socialism was the last thing that the AFL or the less well-known and long defunct Knights of Labor desired.
This blog will focus on those aspects of our dominant sociology that seek to defang the labor movement. [For a blog that shows resistance to New Deal labor codes as dished out by the State by one black radical, see https://clarespark.com/2013/09/02/labor-day-2013/.%5D But since I, unlike Sam Dorsey, am not writing from the revolutionary Left (see https://clarespark.com/2014/05/10/why-i-left-the-left/), I will focus on those features that deter workers from acting in their own interest, for instance in their mindless capitulation to union bosses (a bureaucracy that is rarely mentioned these days).
- Populism versus revolutionary socialism. As I have written before, populism is a petit-bourgeois radical movement that seems to offer upward mobility to ambitious persons from humble backgrounds. Populism deploys such phrases as “the masses” or “the people” as if all but ruling elites formed a compact entity with identical economic and social interests. I don’t see why class analysis should be the monopoly of the Left. Clearly, small business and big business have different structures and problems; the same applies to male and female workers, especially with respect to child rearing and housework. (As to whether or not “class collaboration” between “business” and “labor” is a good thing or not, I leave to economists and other historians. The labor movement made its peace with capitalism during the 1930s and 1940s, and “big labor” has no revolutionary aspirations, to the disappointment of Leninists. The “labor movement” as it once existed, no longer exists in this “post-industrial” service-oriented economy.)
But even worse, populist politics, early on co-opted by “progressives” pervade popular culture, and are promiscuous in their antagonism toward “elites”. In its original form, populism was heavily antisemitic (i.e., bankers, like “Wall Street” were generically a Jewish cabal with ambitions to control the world), a fact brushed out by its New Left defenders. (See https://clarespark.com/2011/02/02/the-legitimate-aspirations-of-the-___-people/.)
I noted during the art world upheavals of the 1970s that protesters defined themselves as “populists”, not as “socialists,” for the term “populism” however tainted by its initial anti-Semitism, was acceptable (for such intellectual celebrities as Hannah Arendt, “the people” was the opposite of a mob, implying that individuals believed in their particular individual rights; hence “the people’s” critique could apply to the supposed crimes of any elite suspected of taking away such rights, no matter how competent the elite’s members might be in their particular field). A particularly grotesque example is found in the Chomsky-ite attack on Walter Lippmann (again an antisemitic gesture) that spread the canard that Lippmann’s influential book Public Opinion (1922) called for the “manufacture of consent” in the newly developing mass media, in order to hornswoggle the gullible people-becoming-mobs. ( See https://clarespark.com/2009/08/19/noam-chomskys-misrepresentation-of-walter-lippmanns-chief-ideas-on-manufacturing-consent/.) A similar condemnation of mass culture can be found in Hannah Arendt’s “must-read” tome The Origins of Totalitarianism (1950, 1958). And yet Arendt is worshipped by many academic radicals, as are other “critical theorists.”
A similar outrage was found in the counter-culture that continues to delight in technophobia and representations of mad scientists (see https://clarespark.com/2014/06/25/penny-dreadfuls-sinister-significance/.)
Indeed, when I defended the Enlightenment on a Pacifica radio popular morning show in the 1990s, I was accused of being a CIA agent, hence the lowest form of animal life—this from listeners who believed themselves to be anticapitalist and pro-labor.
Cultural pessimism. What could be more detrimental to working people than the current mood of doom and gloom? Is it any wonder that they seek refuge in sports and other forms of mass entertainment, that are predictably primitivist and (stylishly) loud?
Where does this doom and gloom originate? Surely not in the aspirations of the Founders, most of whom were avid followers of the various European enlightenments, and who were guardedly optimistic about the future of the republic. I locate the apocalyptic, technophobic, and anti-intellectual mood to the regnant populism and 1960s counter-culture that arguably never had the welfare of working people as their goal, but rather emancipation from their parents—stand-ins for the evil “jewified” bourgeoisie. Enter “youth culture” as revolt against “suburban sadness.”
Materialism and the working class. American reactionaries (among whom I count the populists and faux “liberals”) come out of German (philosophical) Idealism, which was always antidemocratic and protofascist. “Materialism” is now widely understood as an addiction to consumerism and similarly shallow values, whereas materialism used to signify a retreat from mysticism to the power of the individual to use her or his senses, to reason, and thus to defend her and his interests through making sense of the world and its institutions. This older view of “materialism” is now blamed by culture warriors of the Right on “secular progressives”—meaning persons like me who praise cultural pluralism and stand up for education in the sciences, economics, and history, putting children ahead of teachers unions and their narrow interests.
I will end this Labor Day blog by observing that teachers are petit-bourgeois and definitely NOT working class, despite their enthusiasm for their “unions” in which they ape the organization of real laborers. When I trained to be a science teacher in the 1950s, we were constantly asked “is teaching a profession? And if so, should they strike for higher wages?” It is our teachers who are preparing their students for real life as mature adults. The least they could do is not succumb to those administrators who joyfully participate in the Democratic Party urban machines and the collectivist ideologies that these mobsters dispense to kids and their parents who could and should know better.
Postscript: I got this comment from a Facebook friend Stuart Creque this morning after I asked what was interesting about Labor Day: “ My dad was a trade unionist, which is funny because he was a high school teacher, not a laborer. Teachers unionizing is rather like Hollywood writers unionizing: it has nothing to do with collective bargaining power and everything to do with self-image as “working men and women.”
But what really fascinates me about labor today is the death of solidarity. My dad exposed me to what labor solidarity was. And the interesting thing is that nowadays it seems almost nonexistent. Each union seems out for its own interests, and more likely to focus on poaching from other unions than coordinating with them or even honoring their picket lines.
In the Writers Guild of America strike a few years ago, the union actually counseled its members to write and earn as much as possible in the days leading up to the strike deadline. They had no concept that they were giving management inventory to work on during the strike, reducing pressure for a settlement. They had no concept of collecting a strike fund over time and then ordering a work-to-rule slowdown leading into the strike. They also had no stomach to hold out for synchronizing contract deadlines with other Hollywood guilds and unions.” I can only add to Stuart Creque’s comment that writers are competing with each other and thus have little motivation for solidarity in protecting the quality of their work. They form a guild, not a union.
The Clare Spark Blog 
“This older view of “materialism” is now blamed by culture warriors of the Right on “secular progressives”—meaning persons like me who praise cultural pluralism and stand up for education in the sciences, economics, and history, putting children ahead of teachers unions and their narrow interests.”
I’m a conservative and a retired ‘political junkie’ and so able to spend a lot of time on conservative blogs. IMO, your view of “culture warriors of the Right” is a highly flawed stereotype. You appear to believe that conservatives are in the main, all versions of Jerry Falwell. I assure you that such is NOT the case. I’ve never heard a conservative, in principle, denigrate “education in the sciences, economics, and history, [nor] putting children ahead of teachers unions” just the opposite in fact. Of course if you equate criticism of environmentalism and highly flawed global warming ‘hypothesizes’ masquerading as theories with criticism of science in general, then I can understand your POV but it would then bear a remarkable resemblance to the intolerance on the left that you criticize. And we do criticize what passes for economics and history in schools today. Flawed economic theories and historical revision that ignores facts however is intellectual dishonesty disguised as learning.
We on the right do NOT criticize secular progressives for their praise of cultural pluralism, ethnic pride is fine and good. We DO however criticize the cultural pluralism advocated by secular progressives that PREVENTS assimilation into American culture and prevents the cultural embrace of the Five Critical Cultural Key Virtues.
http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/the-five-critical-virtues-its-the-virtues-a-culture-embraces-stupid/
Might I suggest visiting this blog; http://neoneocon.com/ and spending some time perusing the posts of an intelligent conservative to eliminate any stereotypes you might still posses?
She too as was I, was once a liberal.
Comment by Geoffrey Britain — August 30, 2014 @ 4:24 am |
I referred to “culture warriors on the Right.” I stand by this characterization, and am not backing off. Millions of people watch The Factor, Glenn Beck, or read Andrew Klavan in Pajamas Media. As for “assimilation into American culture,” there is no single “American culture,” which is why I mentioned cultural pluralism as a value I embrace. Were you familiar with the mountains of earlier blogs on this theme that I have written perhaps you would characterize my views more accurately. Here is one example: https://clarespark.com/2010/01/02/jottings-on-the-culture-wars-both-sides-are-wrong/. And I am no knee-jerk environmentalist, though on many issues I am in agreement with them: pollution for example.
Comment by clarelspark — August 30, 2014 @ 5:16 am |
“This older view of “materialism” is now blamed by culture warriors of the Right on “secular progressives”—meaning persons like me who praise cultural pluralism and stand up for education in the sciences, economics, and history, putting children ahead of teachers unions and their narrow interests.”
I’m a conservative and a retired ‘political junkie’ and so able to spend a lot of time on conservative blogs. IMO, your view of “culture warriors of the Right” is a highly flawed stereotype. You appear to believe that conservatives are in the main, all versions of Jerry Falwell. I assure you that such is NOT the case. I’ve never heard a conservative, in principle, denigrate “education in the sciences, economics, and history, [nor] putting children ahead of teachers unions” just the opposite in fact. Of course if you equate criticism of environmentalism and highly flawed global warming ‘hypothesizes’ masquerading as theories with criticism of science in general, then I can understand your POV but it would then bear a remarkable resemblance to the intolerance on the left that you criticize. And we do criticize what passes for economics and history in schools today. Flawed economic theories and historical revision that ignores facts however is intellectual dishonesty disguised as learning.
We on the right do NOT criticize secular progressives for their praise of cultural pluralism, ethnic pride is fine and good. We DO however criticize the cultural pluralism advocated by secular progressives that PREVENTS assimilation into American culture and prevents the cultural embrace of the Five Critical Cultural Key Virtues.
http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/the-five-critical-virtues-its-the-virtues-a-culture-embraces-stupid/
Might I suggest visiting this blog; http://neoneocon.com/ and spending some time perusing the posts of an intelligent conservative to eliminate any stereotypes you might still posses?
She too as was I, was once a liberal.
Comment by Geoffrey Britain — August 30, 2014 @ 4:23 am |