What if part of the populist revolt is against the Marxist attempt to define the working class against capital itself? What if that very attempt is a product of managerialism and intellectualism? I don’t think that the working class generally views or defines itself against capital. This is a drama that plays out in the mind of the Marxist intellectual for the most part. Capital, money, the market, trade - these are all internalized, part of our collective identity now (if they ever weren’t). They generate contradictions of course - but populism is more a response to these contradictions than to what is causing them. Of course the Marxist wants to get to the “root” of things - I think that is an error.
If I'm understanding your point, I think I'm in agreement -- populism stems from the increasing psychic pain and social degradation caused by Capital, but I think that the anger tends to get directed more towards the political and cultural structures which allow Capital's operation to continue business as usual while the workers are nonetheless increasingly controlled and harangued. Most workers would be satisfied with getting a livable wage and not having bureaucrats or culture-peddlers meddling in their lives, but at this point in time they are getting neither, so they lash out at the more visible threat. I do think that our current technocratic forms of government, and its various institutions handmaidens, are a severe threat to human freedom, but I see them as deeply connected to Capital, not necessarily in pure opposition to it.
I think what I’m trying to say is that yes, populism does stem from the contradictions of Capital, but I don’t think popular anger and dissatisfaction is directed towards abstract structures. It is directed either towards concrete people, like your boss or foreign neighbors. or towards symbolic substitutes, like the deep state or the 1%. And I’m also saying that people don’t necessarily have a problem with capitalism as such (even if it causes a lot of their problems). They don’t necessarily see it in the Marxist way of an oppressive system bearing down on them. They do want a living wage, freedom from control, but capitalism is naturalized as just the way things are. It’s not seen as something that could potentially be different. It is even beyond that, where as consumers we identify with brands. as workers we identify with producing value. capitalism becomes part of our identity. so that’s why I’m saying that workers aren’t against capital as such. A deeper ideology critique is necessary in order to disentangle these identifications and see that our interests are in banding together as workers. Allegiance to a particular ideology is not necessary
What if part of the populist revolt is against the Marxist attempt to define the working class against capital itself? What if that very attempt is a product of managerialism and intellectualism? I don’t think that the working class generally views or defines itself against capital. This is a drama that plays out in the mind of the Marxist intellectual for the most part. Capital, money, the market, trade - these are all internalized, part of our collective identity now (if they ever weren’t). They generate contradictions of course - but populism is more a response to these contradictions than to what is causing them. Of course the Marxist wants to get to the “root” of things - I think that is an error.
If I'm understanding your point, I think I'm in agreement -- populism stems from the increasing psychic pain and social degradation caused by Capital, but I think that the anger tends to get directed more towards the political and cultural structures which allow Capital's operation to continue business as usual while the workers are nonetheless increasingly controlled and harangued. Most workers would be satisfied with getting a livable wage and not having bureaucrats or culture-peddlers meddling in their lives, but at this point in time they are getting neither, so they lash out at the more visible threat. I do think that our current technocratic forms of government, and its various institutions handmaidens, are a severe threat to human freedom, but I see them as deeply connected to Capital, not necessarily in pure opposition to it.
I think what I’m trying to say is that yes, populism does stem from the contradictions of Capital, but I don’t think popular anger and dissatisfaction is directed towards abstract structures. It is directed either towards concrete people, like your boss or foreign neighbors. or towards symbolic substitutes, like the deep state or the 1%. And I’m also saying that people don’t necessarily have a problem with capitalism as such (even if it causes a lot of their problems). They don’t necessarily see it in the Marxist way of an oppressive system bearing down on them. They do want a living wage, freedom from control, but capitalism is naturalized as just the way things are. It’s not seen as something that could potentially be different. It is even beyond that, where as consumers we identify with brands. as workers we identify with producing value. capitalism becomes part of our identity. so that’s why I’m saying that workers aren’t against capital as such. A deeper ideology critique is necessary in order to disentangle these identifications and see that our interests are in banding together as workers. Allegiance to a particular ideology is not necessary
Outstanding: I will pressure you to put these pieces together into a book, when the time is right. I need to reference it a lot.