Muppies. Millennial Urban Professionals. The extremely online ones (i.e., writers for Jacobin/Splinternews type outfits) are buying brownstones in Bushwick from their trust funds.
Trump’s biggest feuds of 2019 were with reality and with his crippling paresis.
AOC risks damaging her brand the longer she associates with Bern’s losing campaign. For example, she’ll be held accountable for the misogyny and homophobia exuded by Bern’s online acolytes.
John Kasich say Democrats should avoid hard left candidates. The thing is, Bern and Warren aren’t hard left. They use the rhetoric of class struggle, but they are basically Right deviationists. Bourgeois socialists. Millionaires.
Bern’s online support is more left wing and, frankly, unhinged. But they’ll have no influence on policy.
Interestingly, support for the Vermont revolutionary is low among black voters and voters earning <50k
Bern appeals to the aristocracy of labor and those occupying intermediate class positions. Neither of these groups are particularly revolutionary. Lumpenproles remain with Trump.
Class struggle will continue as it has since 1848: predator capitalists on one side and xenophobic, economistic proles on the other side.
It is no surprise that Michael Moore prefers Trump over Biden. So does Walker Bragman.
Without a theory of needs, woke culture analysis remains superficial (i.e., idealist, bourgeois). It can nag from the sidelines, shame on Twitter, but will have no effect in reality.
White supremacists are as ubiquitous in the military today as heroin was during the Vietnam War era.
Fruitcake has a longer half-life than uranium.
Bernie Sanders is disgusted by Bloomberg’s spending. Is Bern disgusted by the $2.5 million Bloomberg spent to elect gun reform Democrats in VA? Oh wait. Bern voted FOR the NRA and gun manufacturers.
The election is a referendum on Trump. Only the pundit class thinks it’s about something else.
Trump embodies the political and moral depravity of the Republican Party post-1965. He’s a terrific spectacle.
Trump’s handing out participation trophies now (to Jon Voight).
John Bolton is back on Twitter. Old porn stach is a welcome reminder of earlier, more decadent times.
Jacobin magazine says the all woman moderator panel at the recent debate was a defeat for feminism.
Indeed. Better to have male moderators pose bloviating questions about Evo Morales than to have female moderators pose serious questions about the defense of reproductive rights which matter to the Democratic Party electorate.
The working class is no longer all that. The shift from a production to a consumption economy means “class” means buying power and lifestyle, not what happens at the point of production.
Putin is behind the current chaos, for sure.
The next crisis will be caused by Glenn Greenwald.
Only Michael Tracey is more livid at Fiona Hill than Gym Jordan.
Only Michael Tracey is more upset than Trump at the news coverage of Ukrainegate hearings.
If Mike Pompeo rolled down a mountain, he would cause a landslide.
How will China’s economy develop without property theft?
As any astute Marxist knows, the working class has not always been progressive (the example of their support for Brexit and Trump is the latest evidence). Also, this Marxist would know that the mode of production in capitalism does not stand still, but is constantly revolutionised. Consequently, the industrial mode of production (most highly rationalised by Henry Ford and Frederick Taylor) could only be a time limited affair. Moreover, the skills and aptitudes needed for work under these labour conditions would also have a relatively short life span. In other words, industrialism as a mode of production would never last forever; thus the towns which built themselves around a mode of production that would become obsolete are similarly doomed to go the way of weavers and steam powered locomotives.
This process of obsolescence was hastened by the battering down of “all Chinese walls” (Marx): not only were “foreign” markets opened to the mode of capitalist consumption, they were opened to mode of capitalist production (industrial production). If capital follows “cheap labour,” then it was also inevitable that industrial production (manufacturing) would migrate across borders to more hospitable climes for the maximum profit extraction/labour exploitation. The spirit of socialist internationalism, that workers of the world share a common plight and a common struggle, is thwarted by national populist tendencies. The effort to restore Chinese walls in the form of new Hadrian’s Wall against the EU or neo-mercantilist policies (Trump) is anachronistic.
Finally, there’s the issue of climate change. The romanticised vision of industrial production, which runs counter to the satanic mill, The Jungle, and the workhouse of its reality, does not comport well with efforts to curb the degradation of the environment. Here, one can turn to an auto-critique of Marx himself: his Grundrisse is brimming over with anti-ecological statements. In other texts (such as the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844), the great man holds that the essence of the worker is bound up with “his” ability to work on nature, i.e., to destroy nature. The worker’s alienation from nature (both internal and external) is premised on “his” loss of the object of labour in a system of private property; “his” alienation is not premised on the filthy waters, toxic air, and superheated atmosphere that results from “his” labour in industrial capitalism. It is not surprising that the states inspired by Marxist thinking (the old CCCP and DDR, and today’s China) were/are global leaders in pollution, no different from their non-Communist brethren in “the West.”