Yes, Virginia, it IS class war...

by: Paul Rosenberg

Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 16:30


As the discussion thread in "What the elites are trying to steal from us, and why" goes on and on, it inevitably gets our resident Tea Party collaborationist metamars trying to smuggle in his "race war not class war" style of "common sense":

"Their income is our cost" is NOT a very powerful meme

I dare anybody to try it out, on a selection of their friends, family, and acquaintances. If might be a big deal for lefties, but I doubt most people will get excited about it.

What most people can relate to, much more easily, is the impossibility of competing against a foreigner who makes 5 cents on the dollar that you do, other factors being equal.

Before addressing what metamars said here, I want to hasten to add that I know metamars is not being intentionally racist.  But intentional racism is not the issue, and hasn't been for quite some time now.  And yet, the racist implications to thinking like this are clear.  As I explained to fladem, when he echoed metmars:

Chinese Workers Didn't Steal Our Jobs

American CEOs STOLE them, and gave them to Chinese workers at a fraction of the pay.

One narrative is FALSE, and pits workers of different nationalities against one another.

The other narrative is TRUE, and pits workers of all nationalities against the CEOs who exploit them.

I'm not uncomfortable with populism.  I'm uncomfortable with RACISM and LIES.

So, with that out of the way, let's return to what metamars wrote. First off, of course, what I'm suggesting here is not a popular meme.  We have centuries of elite brainwashing to thank for that.  But as times get worse, if work hard enough it could well become a popular meme--because, of course, it's true.

But in one sense, it is surely is not a powerful meme right now, because people are just too beaten down, and it's so much easier to blame someone else who's powerless and preferrably far away, so we can blame some faceless "other", and then feel better in our continuing misery.  There's a struggle necessary to get people in touch with their own power before a meme like this can be powerful rather than debilitating.

There's a parallel here to the dynamic discussed in the first diary spin-off from that diary, "Conservatives stoke resentment between worse off & better off workers to prevent solidarity".  Like it or not, as Oaktown Girl pointed out, the meme of blaming better-paid workers is a powerful one, because people lack the confidence as well as the imagination to instead think, "That's what we all should have" instead of "Why do they have that?  Let's take it away from them!"

Well, blaming worse-paid workers in the Third World isn't a whole lot better, either.  They're not the ones in charge.  They're not the ones who are doing it to you.

I want to remind you of the following chart, from my diary of last September, "The One Percent Economy--Part One: The What":

As you can see from the pale yellow line, the bottom 99% has barely seen any income rise since 1973.

Compare that to what it looked like prior to 1973:

Paul Rosenberg :: Yes, Virginia, it IS class war...

The message of that diary was that it wasn't just the working class that was getting screwed, or even the working class and the middle class. Even the affluent top 10% and top 5% excluding the top 1% were not experiencing the kind of income growth that had commonplace prior to 1973:

Oh, sure, those in the top 5 or 10 percent excluding the top 1 percent have done okay... but not by historical standards.  Those in 95th to 99th percentile have seen their incomes (including capital gains) rise by just over 50% since 1973, a period of 34 years (the last data is 2007).  But this compares to a 100% gain from 1945 to 1973--a period of just 28 years.  That's roughly half the gain in 20% more years.  And those in the 90th to 95th percentile have done substantially worse--just over a 30% gain since 1973 compared to 120% from 1945 to 1973, one quarter the growth over a period 20% longer.

What's more, when you combine their incomes with everyone else below them, to get an average income for the bottom 99%, that average has only gained 10% over the past 34 years.  Of course people in the 90th to the bottom of the 99th percentile don't like to think of themselves mixed in with the rabble below. But the folks in the top 1%--particularly those in the top 0.1% must surely find this amusing, since the post-1973 economy really doesn't work for anyone else but them.  And the folks in the 90th through 99th percentile aren't fooling anyone else but themselves if they think otherwise.  Heck, even the bottom half of the top 1% only doubled their incomes from 1973 to 2007, the bottom 90% did almost that well from 1945 to 1973.  This is the picture of an economy that's stagnant for almost everyone--and has been for 34 years now,up until the biggest downturn since the Great Depression kicked into high gear one year ago.

All this means that there's a tremendous amount of confusion to be cut through. Which is why Dean Baker's original article was so powerful, including the key passage that I'll repeat here once again:

No progressive movement will make any progress until we understand the battle we are fighting. Our income is a cost to the rich. They will look to cut it wherever they can, whether this is wages for private sector workers, pensions for public employees, or Social Security for retirees. That is their target.

We have to fight back using the same logic. Their income is our cost -- the multimillion dollar bonuses for the Wall Street wizards is a direct drain on the economy. So are the bloated paychecks of top executives and their lackey boards. Progressives must be prepared to use all the same tactics to bring down the income of the rich and powerful that they have used to reduce the income of everyone else.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Nice strawman (4.00 / 1)
I am not blaming someone for taking a job that is offered.  Of course, the Union people did just that with Scabs, but that is another story.

I AM saying that Metamars is dead right: this is about American jobs going elsewhere.  And that is how people view it.

It appears you are accusing me of rascism (Intentionally or not)(. If you are, you know where you can go, and you know what you can do.

More broadly, this shows why the left doesn't put offshoring very high on the list of issues. Let's be clear: in many ways this is a zero sum game.  The jobs either stay here or go there.


The real issue (4.00 / 8)
is that corporations are not just outsourcing to take advantage of cheaper labor; they are doing it to create cheaper labor here. They want to drive down American wages by forcing us to compete with slave wages overseas. Effective messaging should focus on that - the motive of our corporate rulers to drive down wages, not the pawns (foreign workers) they are using to do it.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Precisely! (4.00 / 4)
"Market competition" is ploy.  As Baker said in his original article, they don't subject themselves to market competition.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
The strawman (0.00 / 0)
was suggesting that I was saying that we should blame the foreign workers.  I resent the implication - it is bull.

And I don't think Metamars was saying that either.

What interests me is the reaction: saying you are going to defend the American Worker somehow becomes rascist.


[ Parent ]
As Mark Pointed Out In That Discussion (4.00 / 2)
It's not necessarily a matter of conscious intent.  It ends up coming out that way whether you want it to or not--unless you specifically identify a cause and a culprit from above.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Cancel my account (0.00 / 0)
I don't need your condecension.

And your line is bullshit.  


[ Parent ]
goodbye (0.00 / 0)
door, ass on the way out, etc

[ Parent ]
Oh, And This Isn't Just True Of Humans (4.00 / 1)
There was a rat experience I read about in college.  The experimenters put rats in a cage together, and then passed current through the wire in the cage.  Without any previous experience to go on, the rats just naturally assumed that the other rats in the cage with them were somehow doing to it them, even if they had no idea how.  So they started attacking one another.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
No, I certainly don't blame foreign workers (4.00 / 1)
Apparently, there's no argument about the facts of foreign workers being paid pennies on the dollar compared to Americans.

But for some reason - allegedly having to do with my unconscious racism - there is some problem with pointing this out. By some mysterious, magical process, blame that I have explicitly placed with American elites, gets morphed into blame of Chinese and other foreign workers, who are trying to get by, like most Americans.

I refer readers to Rosenberg's previous diary, where I have written many comments. I don't have time for any more of this silliness. It's seems particularly silly, since me, fladem, Rosenberg, and Matson apparently agree on where the blame belongs!


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
Every "left" I'm familiar with takes (4.00 / 2)
offshoring seriously. If by "left" you mean Democratic Party, I'd agree with you.

In any case, offshoring, like "free" trade and every other issue related to globalization, shouldn't be addressed by pitting American workers against workers in other countries. It should be placed in the context of class war. Workers of the world, unite? Sorry, but yeah.  


[ Parent ]
This is why (0.00 / 0)
the idea that the left is made of economic populists is such nonsense.

No, we can't defend your jobs. We have to be internationalists. .

The irony is rich.

Bye.


[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 2)
You have trouble posting a comment that doesn't point to an alleged flaw in thinking of "the left."

How nationalistic you think the left's economic populism should be is a good topic of discussion; at times labor's rhetoric is too America-centric for my tastes, even as I recognize its political effectiveness. But just because I'd like to see progressives point out that "free" trade pacts are bad for workers not just in the United States doesn't mean I'm not an economic populist.

In any case, Lou Dobbs may run for president. Maybe you ought to hop aboard his bandwagon.  


[ Parent ]
Frames, not blames (4.00 / 4)
The frame of pitting worker against worker leads to racism, even if the person promoting that frame believes no such thing.

[ Parent ]
Remember when the Obama campaign (0.00 / 0)
labeled Hillary "(D-Punjab)"?

[ Parent ]
means to an end (0.00 / 0)
Hillary would have probably been even worse

no, really


[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
(Why you think I didn't?) I just found that particular political ploy offensive.


[ Parent ]
the framing was really poor (0.00 / 0)
but the idea that Hill was more pro-corporate was something I embraced and one of the ploys they won me over with (yes I am a sucker)

[ Parent ]
Why blame those just above you (4.00 / 9)
on the economic ladder but not those way above you? I think it is due to the effectiveness of conservatism in selling conservative ideology. The morality of conservatism through the ages has been to justify the existing class system by defining morality in whatever way necessary to paint the ruling class as morally superior. So people can see teachers and other union workers as just like them but getting a better deal in terms of benefits, etc. So they think that's unfair. But the super rich are different somehow. They get what they get through their moral superiority. They're not like us. "They create jobs."

The propaganda associating wealth with morality must be challenged relentlessly. That's why it's always useful to point out rich people who are dishonest greedy assholes and rich people who don't know what they're doing and rich people who cause problems for the rest of us (BP and Wall St. for example.)

miasmo.com


That's It ALMOST Exactly (4.00 / 2)
Someone who's just above you because of the hierarchy of conservative values is cool. Such as a church deacon or a supervisor.  But someone who has no right (according to conservative ideology), now that's a whole different kettle of worms.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Forbes (4.00 / 3)
Apropos of nothing, except to describe what is out there, as a kid my Dad would give me back issues of Forbes magazines, back when Malcolm Forbes was editor. The profiles of industry captains always intrigued me, but not as an example as my Dad intended. Instead, I noticed the rhetoric: the profile subject always made things happen magically. Their fellow senior executives, co-founders, employees, even receptionists, they all were carefully erased from the profile. It reminded me of the lives of the saints, airbrushed propaganda.

There is a mythology about wealth and personal value that is very toxic and yet invisible in our society. It's implied everywhere. Yeah you might get a Bernie Madoff, someone publicly humiliated, but there are no mentions of the other capitalists who you have to assume are far worse, as recent history proves.

So it's not conservative ideology, per se. It's a whole cultural thing that goes back to how societies describe themselves. What's good and what's bad. That's what has made me curious to find the alternative to Gordon Gekko.


[ Parent ]
"impossibility"? (4.00 / 1)
"the impossibility of competing against a foreigner who makes 5 cents on the dollar that you do, other factors being equal"

Well as a German citizen, I don't see this impossiblity in my country. So I guess, the trick is that the government has to assure that those "other factors" are not equal!


as an American citizen, (0.00 / 0)
I ask: do you have a sister or niece interested in a sham marriage?

[ Parent ]
Hehehe, only brothers, sry! (4.00 / 1)
But, hey, we do have the gay marriage here in Germany!
:D
I don't think my bros will be interested, though...

And then, not everything is better here. After all, many Germans migrate to other countries, too. For instance, the Swiss is very popular right now. I guess the point is, it depends on the personality, finding the environment that suits you best.


[ Parent ]
Me brain hurts, chapter XXVI (4.00 / 2)
Do I want a piece of this argument? No, frankly I don't. Still, global wage parity would solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it? Who was it who said recently that of the following three institutions: global capitalism, democracy, and the nation state, you can never have more than two at the same time?

When you first see that cleverness in print, it looks like a provocative, but not particularly profound statement. When one considers it at length, however, one can catch a glimpse of the true nature of the dilemma posed by events as seemingly unrelated as the First Communist International, the Marshall Plan, the Bretton Woods Institutions, and the wondrously global manipulation of fully convertible currencies.

This needs a lot more thought. It's a class war, to be sure, but it's also of necessity a Kulturkampf. Untangling the threads will take wiser heads than those sitting on top of our current crop of policy wonks. At some point, I foresee an orgy of overdue renovation in the Grand Warehouse of Ideologies™. (And no, I don't need a crystal ball for that.)


Not because you need really 'em... (4.00 / 1)
But, just in case someone else hadn't seen them mentioned before and is curious.

Dani Rodrik (2010):

Deep down, the crisis [in Greece] is yet another manifestation of what I call "the political trilemma of the world economy": economic globalization, political democracy, and the nation-state are mutually irreconcilable. We can have at most two at one time. Democracy is compatible with national sovereignty only if we restrict globalization. If we push for globalization while retaining the nation-state, we must jettison democracy. And if we want democracy along with globalization, we must shove the nation-state aside and strive for greater international governance.

And, per Paul, Benjamin R. Barber (1992) in Jihad vs. McWorld (also has a book by that title).

Just beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political futures-both bleak, neither democratic. The first is a retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe-a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic mutuality. The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food-with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald's, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitantly apart AND coming reluctantly together at the very same moment.


[ Parent ]
side note (4.00 / 2)
At the tail end of the previous thread, Jbearlaw had a comment that s/he chose to delete and turn into a diary.  I found it valuable.  IANAL, but there is an interesting intersection between the law and economics to which I was sensitized by Econ profs who'd previously practiced law.  A taste:

Wealth = Leverage.  One of the oldest doctrines of contract law is the doctrine of the adhesion (or inherently unfair) contract.  Generally, we encourage the free formation of contracts, between parties who freely enter into them.  If I choose to sell my labor at a price you are willing to buy, why should anyone else care?  Jbearlaw; On How the elites justify stealing from us.

I'd add that somewhere along the line, probably consistent with the rest of the Great American Myths, the entitlement of the wealthy/powerful as a signifier of their superior morality, was replaced by the entitlement of the wealthy powerful as a signifier of their superior merit.  And, it seems circular to me; ie, I have merit therefore I succeed, and my success is a testament to my merit.


Our lives are worth more than their profits (4.00 / 1)
"Our lives are worth more than their profits" - Olivier Besancenot..

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox