|
February 25, 2006
Amerika ain't got no class!
Now that I've devoted several posts to deconstructing the flawed concept of "Cultural Marxism," I think it's fair that I shift my attention to real Marxism (aka Communism). When I started this blog and named it "Classical Values" with a stated goal of ending the Culture War, the idea was to disagree with both sides of this damnable excuse for a war, by reminding people (hopefully in a gentle and constructive manner) that our precious Western heritage is far richer, culturally much deeper, and far antecedes any of the "Culture War" memes which distract so many people by causing them to hate each other. The blog theme was intended to remind everyone that Western Civilization is good. To the right wing, the reminder is that personal matters like human sexuality are not alien forces threatening the fabric of Western Civilization to its core. On the other hand, things like identity politics and post modernist deconstructionism do threaten long-cherished Western cultural values like logic, reason, skepticism, scientific inquiry, and even the arts. I had a classical education and I consider myself a classical liberal (rebadged these days as a "small-l "libertarian"), so I thought I should speak up on behalf of our classical past against those forces which are in a great hurry to disregard or even destroy it. Unfortunately, the damned "Culture War" is a nexus of this destruction, where both sides seem to conspire, as if in an unholy alliance. And I do mean alliance. What most annoyed me about traditional (that word!) Marxists is that they are hung up to the point of being obsessed with this thing called "Class War": [T]he antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle of class against class, a struggle carried to its highest expression in a total revolution. Indeed, is it at all surprising that a society founded on the opposition of classes should culminate in a brutal "contradiction," the shock of body against body, as its final denouement?Class war is culture war, and the Marxian view is based upon a hopelessly outmoded concept that only the so-called bourgeoisie owned what Marx called the "means of production." What in hell is the means of production? I produce this blog on a computer that cost me as much as a pair of shoes. Anyone can sell anything on ebay. I don't think further examples are needed to show how outmoded Marxist thinking is. But this "class struggle" deal -- something about it has thoroughly penetrated Western thinking. On both sides. Class war rhetoric underlies much of what we call the Culture War. In political disagreements, points are scored and countless arguments punctuated by derisive remarks about the class background of the person on the wrong side ("grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth," "a member of the ruling class," "rich," "elite," and other similar remarks about the quality of the person's parentage). This is invariably contrasted with the salt of the earth, working class or poverty stricken background of the person on the other side. Both sides -- left and right -- blatantly engage in class war attacks on each other; the latest manifestation of this is in the "Red State" "Blue State" conflict in which the Red Staters play the role of proletarian masses who seek to be free from their elitist Blue State bourgeoisie oppressors. Rough hewn rednecks versus preppie Ivy League elitists. (Ironically, Marxism has been so perverted that it is the elites Marx hated who most champion it.) I am sick of this Class War stuff, and I think it lies at the core of a lot of what's going on with the Culture War. Unstated and unacknowledged Class War issues are a major reason I'm so intrigued (and amused) by the uproar surrounding President Bush. Not that I'm enamored of him or his politics. (As regular readers know, I'm in the I-held-my-nose-and-voted-for-Bush camp.) But here's what I most like about Bush, and I think it's the very thing he's most hated for: Bush is, simply, a walking, talking Class War! Why, I'd go so far as to say that he's as shocking and outrageous in his own way as "Brokeback Mountain" in its. I know that will come as a shock to some of my readers, so I'll try to explain. It's my theory that the Class War has been largely folded into the Culture War, but that this has happened so slowly, and with so much cooperation by both "sides" (often because of political necessities) that people haven't had time to realize it, much less understand it. Bush is at once the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. He's the rich, unaccountable, spoiled Ivy League brat every "Red Stater" loves to hate, and the Texas, church-going, oil-rig-working redneck every "Blue Stater" fears and regards with contempt. To an inflexible Marxist steeped in Class War and Culture War thinking, a rich preppie is one thing, and a redneck is quite another (and there are different techniques for indoctrinating or neutralizing each). But a hybrid of the two? That's a monstrous atrocity -- a cruel affront to the sensibilities of every true-believer leftist in the United States, whether they admit it or not. Most of them hate Bush with a passion bordering on the insane, but few of them understand why the hatred is so intensely and so bitterly personal. (There are other prominent examples of people who stir similar feelings of cultural outrage, but there's no need to name names.) I think it's because the Class War is the Culture War, and the nexus is founded on division. The proponents of division hate and fear its opposite -- mongrelization and mixing of any kind. A preppie redneck president is almost as horrifying and disgusting a thought as the idea of gun-toting gays going out and voting for him. (How do you remind people like that how dreadfully misguided they are? By making a movie?) Fortunately, America is a land of mongrelization and cultural hybrids. Of people who don't like being told what to do, how to live. And fortunately, inflexibility of thinking is what has made Marxism (and the Class and Culture Wars it spawned) such a miserable failure. Notwithstanding the occasional success, I think it will keep failing. Unfortunately though, Marxist thinking has insinuated itself into both "sides." (Mongrelization isn't always a perfect process....) posted by Eric on 02.25.06 at 07:52 PM
Comments
Mick, thank you. Comments like yours make it worth the trouble of writing these posts. Eric Scheie · February 26, 2006 10:58 AM "Both sides--left and right--blatantly engage in class war attacks on each other; the latest manifestation of this is in the 'Red State' 'Blue State' conflict in which the Red Staters play the role of proletarian masses who seek to be free from their elitist Blue State bourgeoisie oppressors. Rough hewn rednecks versus preppie Ivy League elitists. (Ironically, Marxism has been so perverted that it is the elites Marx hated who most champion it.)" Oh, man, yes. Just, yes. The coarse, reductive Red State-Blue State crap has to be the single most tiresome trope to surface during the last decade. Like a lot of broad-brush generalizations, it can be useful and illustrative in some contexts; but we've now reached a point at which the conservatives (often, humorously, themselves residents of Blue States or Red State cities that are known liberal enclaves) who go condescendingly gaga over the simplicity and decency of Red State America are just as obnoxious as the preening bicoastal liberals who can't imagine living more than three blocks from an independent bookstore. Maybe it's the Pennsylvanian in me, but it drives me nuts. Sean Kinsell · February 27, 2006 01:32 AM "(Ironically, Marxism has been so perverted that it is the elites Marx hated who most champion it.)" Not so ironic when you consider Marx was one of those elites himself: his father was a rich lawyer from a long lineage, he was raised among artists and intellectuals, he was even a member of a dueling society - one of the hallmarks of the Teutonic upper crust. Engels, of course, was even richer. Why rich kids invariably trend left is an interesting question, isn't it? Some options: 1. They feel guilty about their privileges; Allan Levite wrote an entire book about this called Guilt Blame and Politics. I generally go with number 3 in most cases, sometimes 2; their basis in ego defense goes a long way toward explaining lefty hatred and rage. Numbers 1 and 4 seem unable to account for the neurotic/nihilist quality of the hardcore left, but may explain some of the do-gooder types. Brian · February 27, 2006 03:53 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Excellent post. One of the most insightful I've read in quite some time.
Regarding class warfare seeping into the general culture war, you've put it writing something that I've long observed but never really articulated in a meaningful way. A thing I think of as "Rampant Underdogism", and its thesis is roughly this:
"Might doesn't make right, therefore weakness must make right" and its an all or nothing game.
You see it all the time with those who defend the sick abhorrent actions of people who happen to fit within particular "weak" identity groups, be it poor, minority, what have you. While on the other side lambasting relatively minor infractions (or even virtuous acts) of those who are viewed as "strong".