Hooray, I Love Long Hot Showers!

Hooray, I do indeed love to take a nice long hot shower, or at least I did before I moved to Arizona! Anywhoo, I am grateful to to Derrick Jensen for relieving me of the guilt I feel against my crime against Mother Earth and Humanity in his article "Forget Shorter Showers, Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change". But seriously, an essential part of the capitalist culture is to reduce all action down to the level of individual choice and action. Want to save the earth? Recycle that aluminum can and buy a GE energy saver light bulb. Want to do something about world hunger and the suffering of animals in corporate food production? Then become a holier than thou vegan. It's all bullshit. To really effect genuine change requires macro level changes through radical mass action. So don't recycle, ORGANIZE! And enjoy a nice long hot shower! Here are some beginning excerpts from the article:

"Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide."

"Or let’s talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. See the disconnect? Because I take showers, I’m responsible for drawing down aquifers? Well, no. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings. People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.

Continues at linked sentence above."

A Great Working Class American Classic Film, Salt of the Earth!

So many real world working class American issues packed into only the first 10 minutes of the great radical film Salt of the Earth! Lets list them: Accumulation by dispossession, internal colonialism, western expansion, sexual division of labor, childbirth, racism and child hood fights, work place safety, organized labor and the UNION!, debt. Salt of the Earth is a great film made by people blacklisted from Hollywood by McArthyism in the 1950s. Check it out! Availble in full from Netflix or in pieces on Youtube.

To Fight For the Middle Class Or the Working Class?

The other day I was watching progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann on the "Real News"I generally like Hartmann (unless he brings up atheism, but that is another story), and regard him as a well meaning, left-leaning, reformist, progressive Democrat. He is certainly no radical. But if the majority of elected Democratic Party officials had his politics, it might be worth a shit.

Anyway, Hartmann's most recent book is titled: Screwed, The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It. Which raises an issue that annoys the hell out of me about mainstream Democratic political discourse. The term "middle class" is often emphasized, as in a Democrat politician promising to "fight for America's middle-class".

The fact is that the nature of this phrase is one of exclusion. It excludes that sector of the population whose income is lower than what is required to be "middle-class". Think about it a second. To have "a middle-class" one must have a "lower-class". To emphasize the rhetoric of "fighting for the middle class" suggests that one is content to have a "lower-class", and to not "fight for them".

Yes,the term "middle-class" does reflect an aspect of social reality in the distribution of income in the United States. There is a sector of the working-class that has higher income and health benefits than the lower income sector of the working class, and the "working-poor". And the issue isn't necessarily one between white vs. blue collar or professional vs. skilled trades occupations. Within either of those categories one can be part of the "middle-class". At least that used to be true.

In a story I heard on public radio this past weekend about how the economic crisis is hurting both the "middle-class" and the "lower-class" or "working poor" , a sociologist defined the "middle-class" as those who have a stable job, health and other benefits, a pension plan, and sufficient income to buy a home and possibly save for their children's education.

So why shouldn't employment, health care, adequate housing, an old-age pension, and education be extended to all people in this wealthy country? Come on Democrats, why just fight for the "middle-class" in America?

The term "middle-class" is a phrase that reinforces the mystification of social-relations in this country and under capitalism. The term relies on gradations of income, thus blurring distinctions between classes. As a linguistic device it appeals to peoples' sense of hierarchy, giving them comfort in identifying their position as above the so-called "lower-class" rif-raf below them. It intentionally is meant to avoid a more dreaded and dangerous term socio-economic classification, that of the "working class".

On the other hand, the phrase "working-class", through a Marxist perspective, sharpens and clarifies the social relations of capitalism. To survive, to bring in an income, does one sell their labor-power to a business owner or corporation? Must one work for a wage? If yes, then that person is a member of the working-class.

One may work in cubicle, dress in a white shirt and tie, type away at a computer, doing a job that requires a college education. One may have a decent home, a car, a plasma screen television, and make 40 to 70 grand or more a year. If one must sell their labor, then one is of the working class. Just as the the maid, janitor, or factory worker, who may make considerably less.

And for the relatively well paid sector of the working class, they should never forget, that the material benefits of being "middle-class" can be taken all away, as is happening now with the massive job losses and foreclosures. And this it is not just a phenomena of the recession. The employing class continually pushes to impose lower wages, offer fewer benefits, and cajole workers for more hours of work. In fact for the professional sectors of the working class, such as those in lower level management positions, the expectation of working more many more hours beyond the normal 40 for a salaried position is the norm. And although the "middle-class" of the working-class may enjoy more materially, they still often don't escape the experience of alienation that comes with production for profit.

So the term "middle-class" helps to undermine the potential solidarity of the working class. It tacitly accepts that some people will be left in the lower class, despite societies' material capacity to eliminate the conditions that people of the "lower-class" must endure.

Ironically, this acceptance of this two tiered division of the working class is also a betrayal of some of the professed values of American capitalism, such as equal opportunity, and hard work. Of course the working poor work hard, yet so many are denied the conditions of health care, adequate housing, equal opportunities to education and personal development.

So why? Why do allegedly left-leaning Democrats accept and perpetuate these terms? I would argue its because they truly lack any solid political principles to stand on, and thus are only committed to serving any constituents that can assist them in getting elected, and even then they are still willing to stab them in the back.