Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
« November 2005 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
The Goatherder Blog
Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Now Playing: Fundamental thoughts
No, not about religion. I have a couple of thoughts about civil society and American attitudes that are/will form the basis of some of my writing in the near future. I am interested in comments:

1) The most important and effective means of building a stable society is to foster a large and genuine middle class.

2) The worst thing you can do is create a society with a hole in the middle -- a small but very affluent upper class and a large, impoverished lower class. This type of society has to rely on physical force and intimidation (arrests, interrogation and punishment) to maintain order. Order becomes the most important societal value. Violence, either in the form of sanctified state violence or resistence violence, becomes a mainstream part of the culture.

3) Ergo, the best thing we could possibly do to fight the Great War on Terror is to foster a middle class in third world countries. The worst thing we can do is to foster corporate imperialism, like we seem to be doing in Iraq.

4) America was at its peak of power, prestiege and influence during the period from World War II to the end of the century. Although winning WWII had a lot to do with it, this also was the golden age of the American middle class. Bush's war on the middle class portends nothing but trouble.

5) Americans have a real attitude toward other Americans. They are scared to death that someone else will get something for nothing. They are also convinced that everyone else is overpaid, and they take delight in "lower prices every day," at the expense of the wages of other Americans.

6) We have bought, lock, stock and barrel, the truism that we need capital, investment and business profits in order to create a bountiful society. What we have lost is another truism, that workers need to make a decent wage in order to support a prosperous society. As wages stagnate, Americans have turned to debt and two-income households to keep themselves and the economy going. What happens when that runs out? Henry Ford had it right when he said that he had to pay his workers enough that they could buy one of the cars that they produce. Today, we have a perverted version of that -- Walmart pays so little that its workers can't afford to shop anywhere but Walmart.

Posted by The Goatherder at 11:30 AM EST
Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink

Sunday, 15 January 2006 - 9:21 PM EST

Name: Tony

What is meant by a "genuine" middle class? A middle class with access to the essential freedoms? With Iraq, at this late stage, this is not in the US's interests.

The fact of the matter is, the massive increase in consumption which heralded and characterized the post WWII "golden age" of the American middle class isn't sustainable without severely and permanently altering (polarizing) class relations in the third world nations which fuel that consumption. Therefore, assisting the development of a middle class in developing nations directly opposes 50s-style prosperity. Accordingly, these times were certainly not peaceful abroad as the US and its Western partners interfered with the decolonization process to ensure that the former system of explicit exploitation was replaced by the new corporate imperialism.

It's also interesting to note that in the 50s and 60s the prosperous and ostensibly stable US faced the last great (relatively) unified radical social movement (the likes of which had not been seen since the union politics and great strikes pre WWI). Did the general prosperity allow the middle class to fulfill its collective project (the civil rights and women's rights movements)? Or did those aware of the disparity between said prosperity and the reality of the international and domestic situation alter the bourgeois status quo?

The problem today is that the consumerist impulse has outpaced US hegemony. Of course, the narrative of that hegemony still remains, and so US consumers are willing to ignore economic realities as the US borrows borrows borrows to sate consumption.

Where is the new radical project? What happened to the legacy of the 60s left? A lot of people ask this question. The easy answer is that the American populace has become complacent, that the drive to consume has essentially paralyzed the average American from doing anything else. What is the difference between the 50s-style complacency (which did breed a unified left) and the current state of affairs? I think it's just that for the last few decades the majority of American capital has gone toward securing cultural (I mean the consumptive culture) development rather than structural or economic development, so that even though the foundations of our propserity are crumbling, Americans are too inundated with consumer culture to realize it.

View Latest Entries