Observing capitalism in its earliest stages, Marx argued
correctly that it was the most revolutionary force ever unleashed on the
world. He saw that as it expanded and
displaced previous social relations of production, capitalism eroded religious,
ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and gender divisions, seeking always to
reduce the labor force as far as possible to a homogeneous mass of workers who
could be exchanged for one another readily on the factory floor or in the
office. Although he fatally
over-emphasized this tendency, as I have argued in my essay “The Future of
Socialism,” his insight was correct.
Sitting in a café in the Marais after a visit to the Jewish Museum
here in Paris, I found myself reflecting on the way in which Marx’s insight
helped me to make sense of the frustrating limitations of the dramatically
successful liberation movements on which liberals have focused so much of their
energy in the past fifty years or so.
For someone of my age, the social changes in America since the forties
and fifties have been astonishing and exhilarating. The Black Liberation Movement, the Women’s
Movement, the Gay Liberation Movement, and now the nascent Hispanic movement
have changed the cultural and political life of America in ways that are clearly
non-reversible, for all the desperate efforts of hysterical reactionaries.
But during that same period, economic inequality has
steadily increased, the labor union movement has all but died, and the public
discourse has moved markedly to the right on all matters economic.
The simple truth is that none of the “liberation” movements
had an economically radical thrust. In
effect, their demands were variations on the same theme: We Want In!
We demand to be and to be treated as first-class citizens, not second-class
citizens, of this capitalist society – which is, after all, just another way of
saying We Want To Be Exploited Just Like
White Men!
Although this thrust of capitalism is universal, there are
always local variations. In nineteenth
century America, for example, Capital struck a deal with white men, including
immigrants. In return for excluding Black
men freed by the Civil War from the better industrial jobs, thereby reducing
the threat of unemployment to White men, owners were able to hold down wages. Black women were excluded even from such jobs
as department store salesperson until after the Second World War, and in the
successful drive to gain the vote for women, the White women who led the
suffrage movement deliberately excluded Black women from their demands.
But generally speaking, Capital favors the inclusion of
excluded sub-populations in the labor force, for the increase in the numbers of
those looking for jobs keeps wages low.
It was not at all surprising that when the Supreme Court weighed the constitutionality
of the consideration of race in the admissions processes of the University of
Michigan, large corporations filed amicus
briefs in favor of the university’s practices.
We now find ourselves at a moment when the last great
liberation movement, for the LGBT community, is on a clear path to success, but
there is very little evidence of a powerful groundswell of support for economic
justice. To be sure, the obscene rise in
the inequality of income and wealth in America has finally become a subject of
public discussion. But at least thus
far, even such brilliantly theatrical efforts as the Occupy Movement have had
little or no impact on electoral politics.
We will soon see a successful effort by Hillary Clinton to secure first
the nomination of the Democratic Party for the presidency and then the
presidency itself. I would be quite surprised
if Clinton is not president for the eight years following the Obama
presidency. And yet there is not the
slightest hint of anything remotely progressive about Hillary Clinton’s
economic beliefs, commitments, or programs.
Liberation politics has run its course in America. Where the demand, the energy, the drive for
economic progressivism will come from, I do not know. As for socialism, don’t get me started.
9 comments:
This is why I was very much impressed by the distinction made by Marx between political emancipation and human emancipation in "On the Jewish Question."
A very good point, Jerry.
It is not a priori true that we will not become the Ferengi.
"We Want To Be Exploited Just Like White Men!"
... To exploit just like white men ... Is closer to the root motivation. Decoupling specific identities from class solidarity.
Andrew, it has been a while, but I recall the Ferengi as obsequious little people with big ears and bad teeth who will trade anything for anything. I do not think it is fair to the Ferengi to compare them to contemporary Americans.
Seth, you are of course right, but the effect has been as I said.
Seth has hit a nail dead on and square.
Although there is truth in what Seth says, I'm afraid I feel uncomfortable with the "To exploit just like white men". For one, it is an unfair generalization: it ignores the white men who are also exploited.
Particularly if the idea is to promote class solidarity over specific identities.
Maybe this would be a nicer way to put it: "we don't want to be excluded from the charmed circle of 'winners' in our society, based simply on our ethnicity or other identity markers, etc.". The emphasis is on "let ME win too!". This fails as a way to remake society because it does not question the "lottery" structure of the economy.
I remember Michelle Obama giving a nice speech, probably during the 2008 campaign, about how wonderful and improbable her own life story has been. She didn't mean to, but the subtext she conveyed was -- look it was possible for ONE person to attend Princeton, become a lawyer, get a great job, etc. so if you feel oppressed, get over it. It is realistic and practical advice for any one person to adopt. But it doesn't scale. We can't ALL be rich, you know. That contradicts the definition of "rich" -- having a lot more than most other people.
Post a Comment