Re: ripening contradictions?
Pen-L'ers, On the topic of Michael Moore's conceptions and representations of the U.S. working class, Michael Eisenscher says, >Michael Moore frequently makes great sense, but his view of the "working >class" is about as stereotyped as that of many off-the-wall leftists. To >listen to him, you'd think that the only real workers are "Joe 6-packs" who >hang out at bowling allies, stock car races, monster tractor meets, and >neighborhood bars. News Flash: this is not 1952 and the working class and >the world are just a tad more complex than his oversimplified images, >however entertaining they may be. While Mike is rubbing pot bellies with >the good ol' boys at the tavern, there are a lot of working folks whose >lives and interests are far more textured and interestings that he suggests, >and they are not all white guys into arm-wrestling and beer guzzling. Here in S.F. where I live, young white men who _look_ like Michael Moore's stereotyped depicitions of the working class (bowling shirts, tattoos, into car repair, etc.) are rarely themselves from a working-class background, hold working-class jobs, or have any sense of working-class identity. More likely, they derive from a middle-class background and already are members of or are heading toward the technical-professional salariat, and are merely "slumming" and riding the latest sardonic and demeaning capitalist culture industry trend, "working-class kitsch," which itself derives from a stereotyped depiction of "Joe Six-Pack." (Meanwhile these same folks who affect stereotyped "white working class" styles of dress, mannerism, consumption tastes, etc., are pawns in the gentrification of real working-class Latino and black neighborhoods). In these so-called "post-modern" times, the capitalist culture industry has become so all-encompassing, savvy, and complex, one risks wild inaccuracies if one deigns to connect a person's habits and consumption preferences, and that person's "objective" class location. Corner taverns formerly favored by working-class old timers are colonized by gentrifying hipsters who find the gritty working-class milieux so "authentic," yet don't know and don't care (and make even crack jokes) about its former denizens. Meanwhile working-class folks flock to the chain family restaurants and big box stores in the middle-class suburbs, the very places that the hip twentysomething young adults who latch onto "working class kitsch" are trying to escape. And so on. John Gulick Ph. D. Candidate Sociology Graduate Program University of California-Santa Cruz (415) 643-8568 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ripening contradictions?
Michael Moore frequently makes great sense, but his view of the "working class" is about as stereotyped as that of many off-the-wall leftists. To listen to him, you'd think that the only real workers are "Joe 6-packs" who hang out at bowling allies, stock car races, monster tractor meets, and neighborhood bars. News Flash: this is not 1952 and the working class and the world are just a tad more complex than his oversimplified images, however entertaining they may be. While Mike is rubbing pot bellies with the good ol' boys at the tavern, there are a lot of working folks whose lives and interests are far more textured and interestings that he suggests, and they are not all white guys into arm-wrestling and beer guzzling. And they don't all come from Flint, any more than from Berkeley or Cambridge. Michael (who grew up in good ol' working class Milwaukee, which at the time had more bars per capita than any other city in the country)
Re: ripening contradictions?
friends, it seems hard to believe that micxhael moore can be called a hypocrite. in what sense? he certainly puts his money where his mouth is, by, for example, giving time and money to the workers at borders to help their union drives, as well as allowing his new film to be used for similar purposes. he's given away a lot of his royalties too. i heard him speak to borders' workers in nyc a few months ago. great stuff and he really connected with the workers. of course, it is easy enough to argue with his nation articles, especially if we take him literally, just as it is esy to be put off by alex cockburn's style sometimes. for example, moore tells us to go to bowling alleys and bowl and meet some real people. well, i was once a good bowler and i spent hundreds of hours in bowling alleys (and pool halls and basketball courts and sleazy bars, etc.) and i've been teaching real people for years. trouble is, real people, like professors and the like on the left, are a mixed bag. a guy in a bowling alley was once going to knock me senseless for suggesting that michael jordan was a better player than larry bird, and i cannot tell you how many fights i've nearly gotten into over racial issues in bars and on b-ball courts. so if you elite snob leftists decide to take moore's advice, be careful or be a ggod fighter! i do draw the line at car racing, however. i'd rather suport mumia and the sandinistas. of course, there is no reason why we cannot be attuned to the lives and needs of working people (including all of the ones in academe) and at the same time support every good radical cause in the world. it is sad to think that two good leftists like moore and cockburn would waste time fighting. they should bowl a couple of lines, have some beers, and have a good time. michael yates
Re: ripening contradictions?
>The NY Press, which >Cockburn writes for, has been attacking Moore as a do-nothing hypocrite for >a while now and Cockburn has entered the fray. If that is a good summary of Alex's position on MM, that's pretty weak. If 'the masses' are ripe for organization, I'd posit that Moore has aided in that development. After all, his show was apparently the time-slot leader for 18-35 yr old males. I don't see AC denouncing his friend Noam Chomsky for not being more active amongst workers, yet NC has said things very similar to what MM wrote. >"More news for you, Michael. The 'left' did come [to Flint]. They supported >Jesse Jackson. That particular year, under the influence of Andrew Kopkind, >the Nation actually endorsed Jackson. We wrote pages about the Michigan >vote, many of them by me. The people who didn't want to pay attention to >the Michigan vote were the liberals backing Dukakis. If you had a memory >instead of a set of one-liners you'd remember that, and you'd attack the >liberal Democratic mainstream. But it's somehow more fun to flail away at >that poor old tarnished nag, 'the left,' in which activity you're at one >with the entire political mainstream." There seems to me to be a big difference between writing about it and having a strong organizational presence amongst the workers. i don't see what AC's problem is. If he is saying that he (and the real left, not the mainstream) wrote about it and somehow that disproves MM's thesis, he isn't speaking to Moore's point- i.e. writing about it isn't good enough; how about showing up and speaking with the folks who later joined militias? Show them that the left isn't a bunch of isolated intellectuals, but real people with an inspiring program for positive change. If, on the other hand, Alex is saying that the real left did do all they could (beyond just writing), then evidently their message had little effect. Many people eventually opted for the extreme right (Nichols, et al). However, i think this argument would be rather feeble. Chomsky related recently how he was quite disappointed with a "solidarity" event in Boston regarding the situation in Decatur. While nearly every leftist event packs this particular hall, it was nearly empty for that event. Granted, it's a different state, but... At any rate, it seems to me quite clear that the left has loads of readily available actions to undertake. Take the contrast of student vs. worker organizations: on any campus, for students who are sick of 'the system', there are generally several groups to join- the problem is apathy, as well as (due to small numbers) a lack of visibility; but few debutante lefties could claim they don't know about the groups. For non-students (i.e. regular people) the situation is exctly the reverse. Though frustration runs high, there are few institutions available, and besides, very few people know about them. It seems to me that the most most effective tact for the left would be to form highly visible, highly accessible organizations so that, should a person feel frustrated and want to "do something", there are obvious groups to join. Sort of like Greenpeace: everyone knows that if you want to save the whales, join them (or give money). Any thoughts? Regards, Dave
Re: ripening contradictions?
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: > The authors don't draw this conclusion, but those three clouds, plus the > fourth, the fast-trace defeat, look like the ripening contradictions of the > hypercapitalism of the last 20 years. If the Asian "miracle" is over, then > the export model is in need of a serious rethink; if the U.S. can't get its > allies to sign onto a bombing run over Baghdad or the continued isolation > of Iran, then the New World Order of 1991 seems a lot more disorderly; and > if some approach to greenhouse gas reduction can't be crafted, then life > itself is in danger. That, plus a growing political backlash against free > trade and capital mobility, all suggest some major political quake is > underway. Very likely. Probably the backlash has been somewhat delayed in the United States of Decay, for all the usual post-Imperial reasons -- i.e. a stagnant service economy, and an unusually corrupt corporate media -- but there's no doubt that neoliberalism as a political project is crashing and burning before our very eyes (this is not the same thing, of course, as the crash and burn of the global economy itself, which I regard as highly unlikely). During my sojourn in Europe 1995-96 I was constantly amazed at the depth and scale of the popular anger in France, Belgium and elsewhere in Europe against the marketeers; Maastricht monetarism was truly a paper tiger from the beginning, but its superficial gnawing at the (still mostly intact) European welfare states has now called forth the fearsome dragon of Red-Green mobilization in Central Europe. Something similar is happening in Eastern Europe, where 20% unemployment and a Great Depression caused people to trash Hayek and the market idols even faster than they trashed the Stalinist monuments. And now even the supposedly market-led boom of the Southeast Asian microbubbles (as opposed to the genuine, state-led boom of the East Asian core states) has gone bust, which has called forth a spate of -- savor the dialectical irony, comrades! -- gargantuan transnational Government bailouts, virtual replays of the 1992-97 Japanese Godzilla-of-all-bank-bailouts. Theoretically, you could argue that after proletarianizing the bulk of the planetary working population from 1965-95 and utterly and horribly smashing the former Second and Third Worlds, capital has unwittingly created, Frankenstein-style, a transnational proletariat out of the regional, urban, national and international predescessors of such. This proletariat consumes global commodities and cultural icons, fights interlinked class struggles against interlinked comprador elites, works for the same multinationals in global niche markets, communicates on global telecom and computer networks, and runs the gamut from graduate students and computer programmers to Third World women and factory children. The Old Mole of revolution is quantum-tunneling in the mazes of e-money and silicon commerce, grubbing the forests of Chiapas and the development ministries of Malaysia, and scouting the Intranets of Mitsubishi's corporate HQ and the mansion-fortress of the World Bank, and though none can say where or when the neon-pixeled pick-and-shovel icon of the radical critter will surface on the Websites of the world, the tapping sounds from the Pentium bus are getting louder and louder. -- Dennis
Re: ripening contradictions?
Tom Walker wrote: >In many respects, the contradictions were "riper" in the late 1970s and >early 1980s. Recall gold soaring to $800 an ounce, prime interest rates of >20%, the fall of the Shah in Iran, the Sandanista victory in Nicaragua, >uprising in S. Korea, big corporate bankruptcies, the threat of third world >loan default, Jimmy Carter's "malaise" . . . > >Those ripening contradictions turned out to be mulch for reaction and >retrenchment rather than fodder for revolution. The current set of ripening >contradictions shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who follows the rhythm of >ripenings. As the preacher said, there's nothing new under the sun. Different contradictions now from then. Those contradictions gave rise to the "neoliberal" retrenchment, a strategy that now may be stumbling. To put it crudely, in the late 1970s, the working class and the Third World had gotten too powerful and needed to be cracked over the head. They were, quite successfully. Whether that "solution" has now run its course is worth thinking about. As I said in response to Bill Lear, I'm deeply allergic to diagnosing crisis; the left has been wrong too many times on this. On the other hand, this very reluctance to see crisis (compared with the hysterical tone of much 70s left discourse, and even mainstream discourse) may in itself be telling. >So, comrades, what is to be done? World revolution, now! Of course. I know because I read Workers Vanguard. Doug
Re: ripening contradictions?
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: > Different contradictions now from then. Those contradictions gave rise to > the "neoliberal" retrenchment, a strategy that now may be stumbling. To put > it crudely, in the late 1970s, the working class and the Third World had > gotten too powerful and needed to be cracked over the head. They were, > quite successfully. Whether that "solution" has now run its course is worth > thinking about. > While Labour ran away after suffering a bloody nose I don't think it can be said that the Union body was dealt any deadly blows, i.e. ones that it cannot recover from, with the help of a little willpower. There's lots of action in Latin America, and there is likely to be more in Asia. To make another comparison, and despite all the moaning and wailing about globalization, etc., it is not like the way has been cleared for capital the way that fascism and WW2 did the job. Those fights are still ahead us, not behind. I was intrigued when Doug H. quoted Anwar S. suggesting this is the start of a new long wave. I'm doubtful, but one thing we may be able to contribute to "what is to be done" discussions is assessing various notions regarding the 'objective conditions'. Bill Burgess
Re: ripening contradictions?
Dave Markland: > >As Michael Moore wrote recently, the left has to get off its butt, stop >infighting, and get to the people who will make a difference: the bus driver >with a second job to make ends meet; the waitress who's a single mom; these >people are about 3 inches from denouncing capitalism, only they don't even >know what caitalism is. As Moore points out, it's no coincidence that Terry >Nichols is from the Flint, MI area; while GM employees were being laid off >by the thousands, 'the left' was in Nicaragua supporting the Sandanistas, or >in Philly protesting the death penalty. > PEN-L'ers should be aware that a full-scale verbal war has erupted between Alex Cockburn and Michael Moore over this article. The NY Press, which Cockburn writes for, has been attacking Moore as a do-nothing hypocrite for a while now and Cockburn has entered the fray. For example, on the question of the left getting enthused over the Sandinistas and ignoring Flint, Cockburn says: "More news for you, Michael. The 'left' did come [to Flint]. They supported Jesse Jackson. That particular year, under the influence of Andrew Kopkind, the Nation actually endorsed Jackson. We wrote pages about the Michigan vote, many of them by me. The people who didn't want to pay attention to the Michigan vote were the liberals backing Dukakis. If you had a memory instead of a set of one-liners you'd remember that, and you'd attack the liberal Democratic mainstream. But it's somehow more fun to flail away at that poor old tarnished nag, 'the left,' in which activity you're at one with the entire political mainstream." Louis Proyect
Re: ripening contradictions?
I really don't know what Doug is talking about. I just got my IMF Survey a couple of days ago and the headline reads: "Camdessus Commends Indonesia's 'Impressive' Economic Policy Program". Obviously, nothing is wrong with the far east.(;-)) Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: ripening contradictions?
William S. Lear wrote: >First, I'm very leery of "ripening contradictions", as I remember >hearing about those continually for the past umpteen years, and >somehow, capitalism always seems to right itself. Oh god, me too. I'm very very wary of crisis talk, which is one reason I'm so tentative about this. I just think there's some reason to feel that *something* is happening, though I'm not sure what. >Finally, I recognize the glee one might feel in seeing the system >creak and groan---I share it, too. But I think we also ought to ask >ourselves what will happen when it comes to a crashing halt, or if it >significantly breaks down. I entirely agree. I'm not feeling gleeful about this - especially since the left is in such dismal shape. Just seems like something we should be aware of, and talking about. Doug
Re: ripening contradictions?
> > >So, comrades, what is to be done? > > World revolution, now! Of course. I know because I read Workers Vanguard. > > Doug Aw Doug, First we need to have an internecine war between revisonists, mensheviks, true trots and false trots*then* and only then can we have a world revolution Steve > > >
Re: ripening contradictions?
In many respects, the contradictions were "riper" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Recall gold soaring to $800 an ounce, prime interest rates of 20%, the fall of the Shah in Iran, the Sandanista victory in Nicaragua, uprising in S. Korea, big corporate bankruptcies, the threat of third world loan default, Jimmy Carter's "malaise" . . . Those ripening contradictions turned out to be mulch for reaction and retrenchment rather than fodder for revolution. The current set of ripening contradictions shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who follows the rhythm of ripenings. As the preacher said, there's nothing new under the sun. So, comrades, what is to be done? Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: ripening contradictions?
>In many respects, the contradictions were "riper" in the late 1970s and >early 1980s. Well today we have a much worse economic situation for the non-rich- wages have been falling since then. Also, many people remember the late 70's as a time of jobs for the asking, while today i suspect many people hold no hope for a good job situation. As Michael Moore wrote recently, the left has to get off its butt, stop infighting, and get to the people who will make a difference: the bus driver with a second job to make ends meet; the waitress who's a single mom; these people are about 3 inches from denouncing capitalism, only they don't even know what caitalism is. As Moore points out, it's no coincidence that Terry Nichols is from the Flint, MI area; while GM employees were being laid off by the thousands, 'the left' was in Nicaragua supporting the Sandanistas, or in Philly protesting the death penalty. Regards, Dave
Re: ripening contradictions?
On Wed, November 12, 1997 at 10:04:19 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes: >Today's Financial Times has a think piece by reporters Bruce Clark and >Nancy Dunne reflecting on the failure of fast track. As they say, this >setback to the free traders' agenda "coincides with the appearance of three >other dark clouds...on the global horizon": the collapse of Asian >currencies and stock markets, international reluctance ot go along with >Washington's policy of "dual containment" of Iran and Iraq, and the >inevitably acrimonious Kyoto global warming conference. > >The authors don't draw this conclusion, but those three clouds, plus the >fourth, the fast-track defeat, look like the ripening contradictions of the >hypercapitalism of the last 20 years. Let me play a half-serious Doubting Thomas to some very good observations by Doug. First, I'm very leery of "ripening contradictions", as I remember hearing about those continually for the past umpteen years, and somehow, capitalism always seems to right itself. Fast track was not a defeat for capitalism itself, it was more like a mild rebuke to a particular coalition of the capitalist class. > If the Asian "miracle" is over, then >the export model is in need of a serious rethink; That's a big "if", which if it nevertheless comes to pass, might be replaced by yet another "miracle", or even dispensed with altogether. Capital's ability to exploit won't be deterred by minor setbacks, it will take major divisions within the capitalist class (which actually may be set in motion by the end of "miracles"). Also, as you have pointed out, hasn't the real level of "globalization" been relatively constant over the past 20 years? Or is this something entirely different? What fraction of our GNP is directed toward Asia? What are the fractions of capital flows (if this is even the right question)? What, in real terms, would we (the capos) lose should Asia really go down the tubes? > if the U.S. can't get its >allies to sign onto a bombing run over Baghdad or the continued isolation >of Iran, then the New World Order of 1991 seems a lot more disorderly; The New World Order was built on pretty much the same international opinion. The U.S. essentially bribed and threatened the rest of the world to go along with us in 1991, and the other G7 countries (except for our loyal puppy, Great Britain) basically washed their hands of things. We've been outvoted 150-2 in the UN for at least 20 years on issues like this, and it hasn't seemed to hamper us too much. > and >if some approach to greenhouse gas reduction can't be crafted, then life >itself is in danger. This is the one which has me the most worried, because I think the problem will continue to grow, and that it could mean an immense crisis, particularly in the US, based so heavily as it is on automobile transportation. On the other hand, new technologies have a way of appearing when they are needed most. There has been little real effort on the part of the capos to address this. Given their immense resources (real human beings under their control, immense sums of cash), I can envision even this problem being solved, and hell, even a profit turned on it. > That, plus a growing political backlash against free >trade and capital mobility, all suggest some major political quake is >underway. Don't know what it all means yet, but something's happening. The real question is, Where is this backlash located? Sure, the population is not fooled, and has rarely been, about for whom the political system (or economic system) works. But, to the extent that this opinion is outside of the functioning political system, and that the "golden rule" applies here, we need to look at the elite coalitions and how they might be fracturing over this. That is not to say, of course, that the usual rules of the Left don't apply (organize, teach, think, etc.) and that we should sit on our thumbs. But, if we really are talking about a "political quake", that is, something which is likely to shift the political system itself, then I'd say, at least in the short run, we'll have to keep a very sharp eye out on the various capo coalitions. Tom Ferguson's work here is unparalleled and I think it would very nicely compliment much sensible Marx-inspired work on class discontents, etc. Finally, I recognize the glee one might feel in seeing the system creak and groan---I share it, too. But I think we also ought to ask ourselves what will happen when it comes to a crashing halt, or if it significantly breaks down. Particularly in the U.S., I fear that nothing like a "popular" revolution will take place. The level of religious fundamentalism in this country is immense, and increasing, fanned by the entire spectrum of responsible opinion and money. We are, in Chomsky's words, "a di
