Thursday 17 January 2019

Class warfare lies behind populism

SHARE
Yugoslav dissident Milovan Djilas called these party hacks the “New Class,” noting that instead of workers and peasants against capitalists, it was now a case of workers and peasants being ruled by a managerial new class of technocrats who, while purporting to act for the benefit of the workers and peasants, somehow wound up with the lion’s share of the goodies....


But the New Class isn’t limited to communist countries, really. Around the world in the postwar era, power was taken up by unelected professional and managerial elites. To understand what’s going on with President Donald Trump and his opposition, and in other countries as diverse as France, Hungary, Italy and Brazil, it’s important to realize that the post-World War II institutional arrangements of the Western democracies are being renegotiated, and that those democracies’ professional and managerial elites don’t like that very much, because they have done very well under those arrangements. And, like all elites who are doing very well, they don’t want that to change....

Talking about the yellow-vest movement, French geographer Christophe Guilluy observes:
“Immediately, the protesters were denounced as xenophobes, anti-Semites and homophobes. The elites present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist, but this is merely a way of defending their class interests. It is the only argument they can muster to defend their status, but it is not working anymore."

Trump is the symptom of a ruling class that many of the ruled no longer see as serving their interest, and the anti-Trump response is mostly the angry backlash of that class as it sees its position, its perquisites and self-importance threatened.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds in USA Today

6 comments:

  1. The War of Ideas Within the Democratic World

    Within the democratic world itself there is a deep division over where ultimate authority (that is to say, sovereignty) resides. Is it with sovereign democratic nation-states or is it with evolving transnational and supranational institutions and rules of global governance (for example, new concepts of customary international law) that nation-states have either delegated authority to or permitted (sometimes encouraged) to expand?

    To put it bluntly, there is an argument within the democratic family over the single most important question in politics: who should rule?

    American conservatives embrace our democratic sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution as the highest political authority for Americans. Others, including allies such as Germany and many nation-states in the European Union, as well as a considerable number of American progressives, tout the transnational institutions of global governance and the evolving concepts of international law as the final arbiters of legitimate authority above the sovereignty of any nation-state.

    This global ideological conflict over core values between what we might call “sovereigntists” and “post-sovereigntists” or, as President Trump puts it, between “patriotism” and “globalism” is perennial. It will continue well into the future and no doubt intensify in the decades to come. It will intensify because “globalism” (what I have labeled “transnational progressivism”) is not a chimera, an apparition, or the moniker for a conspiracy theory. On the contrary, transnational progressivism (globalism for short) is a real actor in world politics complete with a workable ideology, a strongly situated material-social base among global elites, and in some areas, the backing of nation-states.

    Globalists dominate major international institutions, including the leadership of the United Nations, the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, international NGOs (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.), the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, CEOs of global corporations, major universities throughout the West, and even organizations such as the American Bar Association which actively promotes the “global rule of law.” Most significantly, globalist ideology is predominate in some European nation-states including the Angela Merkel’s Germany and Emmanuel Macron’s France.

    Some label the globalists as the “Davoise.” John Bolton has referred to them as the “High Minded.” In any case, it is clear to most Americans on the Right today (and it will be even clearer in the future) that the worldview advocated by the transnational progressives is diametrically opposed to the interests and principles of those who want to “conserve” our constitutional democracy and way of life. Future political conflict between American conservatives and transnational progressives is inevitable.

    John Fonte
    https://www.amgreatness.com/2018/12/14/the-trump-doctrine-is-the-future-of-conservative-foreign-policy/

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The global ideological conflict over core values between what we might call..., as President Trump puts it, 'between patriotism' and 'globalism' is perennial.'"

    The "core values" is actually one core value- increase profit for corporations and share holders. US foreign policy is designed to gain access to resources and cheap labor in foreign lands while opening markets for American businesses. The result- many Americans lose jobs, many American corporations avoid paying US taxes, foreign countries "reverse-engineer" American technology and the "dollar" dies as the global currency. Hence the union-busting euphemism,"the right to work," which means the elite know its time to return to America and exploit American workers again or the peasants may revolt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Around the world in the postwar era, power was taken up by unelected professional and managerial elites.

    One of the points that Christophe Guilluy has made is that while we have a new elite class (the managerial class) we still have the old one (the capitalists) as well. But that does not mean that the elites have split into factions or are in any way divided. The old elites and the new elites are absolutely united. Their class interests are identical.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Guilluy: "We have a new bourgeoisie, but because they are very cool and progressive, it creates the impression that there is no class conflict anymore. It is really difficult to oppose the hipsters when they say they care about the poor and about minorities.

    "But actually, they are very much complicit in relegating the working classes to the sidelines. Not only do they benefit enormously from the globalised economy, but they have also produced a dominant cultural discourse which ostracises working-class people. Think of the ‘deplorables’ evoked by Hillary Clinton. There is a similar view of the working class in France and Britain. They are looked upon as if they are some kind of Amazonian tribe. The problem for the elites is that it is a very big tribe.

    "The middle-class reaction to the yellow vests has been telling. Immediately, the protesters were denounced as xenophobes, anti-Semites and homophobes. The elites present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist but this is merely a way of defending their class interests. It is the only argument they can muster to defend their status, but it is not working anymore.

    "Now the elites are afraid. For the first time, there is a movement which cannot be controlled through the normal political mechanisms. The gilets jaunes didn’t emerge from the trade unions or the political parties. It cannot be stopped. There is no ‘off’ button. Either the intelligentsia will be forced to properly acknowledge the existence of these people, or they will have to opt for a kind of soft totalitarianism.

    "A lot has been made of the fact that the yellow vests’ demands vary a great deal. But above all, it’s a demand for democracy. Fundamentally, they are democrats – they want to be taken seriously and they want to be integrated into the economic order." https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/01/11/the-gilets-jaunes-are-unstoppable/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "spiked: How can we begin to address these demands?

      Guilluy: First of all, the bourgeoisie needs a cultural revolution, particularly in universities and in the media."

      No kidding!

      Delete
    2. It took me a few decades to get what 'class' is (and you might find enough bona fide literature documenting the expectation of class parties breaking down beyond the context where the intuition comes from); inasmuch, I would talk of the same political scenery in terms of what 'public space' is to either of the parties concerned, reminding that the democratic gesture, the vote, is barely half public...

      Delete