====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Greg McDonald <gregm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I fail to see the relationship between the tea party and the white > working class. Most of the demographic data on the tea party I have > seen, some of it posted on this list, indicates it is primarily a > middle and upper-middle class phenomenon. > > Most working class people are working two or three jobs and don't have > time to go to rallies anyway. > > Greg McD > > > >From the article: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/prashad240111.html "The Tea <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/sd210410.html> Party<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/ds290410.html>is the political expression of the fears of the white working class and the managerial sector. Most of its supporters are older, white, and male. Many also happen to be Christian fundamentalists." "The new unemployed, who have joined the disposable in a structural sense but not at all in a subjective sense, are white-collar managerial workers who inhabit the office parks, answering phones, managing inventory, and straightening up databases. " It is fairly obvious that you and V. Prashad have different working definitions of 'the working class'. I agree with you demographically on where support for the tea party comes from, probably Prashad would too. Of course the 'middle class' is not a Marxist class definition, not that it isn't often useful, particularly in a US context. I am somewhat agnostic on how exactly to define the working class and can see arguments for multiple definitions depending on context. I take Marx's discussion of 'the collective worker' in Capital and similar later period texts seriously. How best to define the working class would no doubt be a long, complex and interesting discussion. However, I was mostly interested in people thoughts on that other class, 'the global ruling class'. As I said: ------------------------------------------------------ One thought. To what extent is the ruling class now 'global'? And what does this mean for how we think about imperialism and capitalism? Richard Seymour / Lenin's Tomb recently posted this piece: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/01/global-ruling-class.html Louis Proyect posted as comment the link to a recent New Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343 William Robinson's recent piece in Radical Philosophy ('The Global Capital Leviathan') might also be of interest: http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/default.asp?channel_id=2187&editorial_id=29356 There was some discussion of this a decade ago in the midst of the Global Justice Movement, in particular discussion was catalyzed by Hardt & Negri's 'Empire'. But 'Empire' was hopelessly utopian in outlook and then 9/11 happened and all the talk turned to 'The New Imperialism' and a US attempt to re-assert hegemony via neo-conservatism, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. One gets the feeling now that neo-conservatism was less a sea-change than a stage in the continuing evolution and deepening of a neo-liberal globalism, something that has been accelerated by this crisis. I noticed Louis attempted to have a discussion of imperialism some years ago which never really got past the 1970s. Where are we now? ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
