They had one thing in common with the old aristocrats: they hated capitalists and capitalism — frank

If they both hated capitalism, their reasons for doing so were quite different. Laborers were toiling in the 'dark, satanic mills' [William Blake's term]; long hours, dangerous working conditions; low pay; hard work. Aristocrats may have disdained the capitalists rapidly accumulating wealth, but they probably also envied it. Land-rent based aristocrats weren't poor, of course.

The Left (socialists, Marxists, communists, anarchists (IWW), et al did indeed help workers organize, unionize, and resist capitalists' exploitation. I don't see a parallel between aristocrats and leftists or workers. What are you reaching for in making that comparison?

You are right that labor and the left were steamrolled by global capitalism, Neo-liberalism, and governments. Capital and law enforcement (for example the FBI) despised the Left and after WWII finished off what remained of the once-muscular left. Post WWII economic expansion lifted incomes for many workers, as did VA, FHA, and related programs for home loans and college education. By the 1970s the expansion was over. Over the last 50 years, as you noted, the working class (>80% of American families) has gradually lost economic ground through stagnant wages, de-industrialization (or off-shoring), automation, and steady inflation.

Academic leftists are perhaps somewhat analogous to a superannuated aristocracy. Most of them have just about zero connection with working class organizing or working class life. Struggling to explicate post-modern understanding within English Departments (et al) could just as well be taking place on Mars as at the local University. Some academics have risen from the ranks of the working class, but my guess is that most of them have been launched from the more favored middle class of professional families (or better).

In summary: Yes, the psychic back road between the European (or any) Aristocracy and Leftists is indeed VERY OBSCURE.

In the future I'm going to write all my thoughts in the form of a dialog so people won't try to pigeon hole me. It might take me a while to address all your excellent points.

If they both hated capitalism, their reasons for doing so were quite different. Laborers were toiling in the 'dark, satanic mills' [William Blake's term]; long hours, dangerous working conditions; low pay; hard work. Aristocrats may have disdained the capitalists rapidly accumulating wealth, but they probably also envied it. Land-rent based aristocrats weren't poor, of course. — BC

On whether we can draw a distinction between leftists and laborers:


American laborer says, *sung to the melody of an old spiritual*:

"Come on all you workin' people
Good new to you, I'll tell,
All about how the good ole' union
Is coming here to dwell.

"Which side are you on? *repeated three more times*

"Rich man say he's gotta put us down
And educate his child
His children live in luxury
And ours are almost wild.

"Which side are you on? *repeated three more times*

"Now we got the good fight
I know we're bound to win.
'Cause we got them gun thugs
Lookin' mighty thin."

"Which side are you on? *repeated three more times*

_________________________________________________________

The Leftist speaks:

"In the question under discussion now, Darimon got no further than the point that banks, which deal in credit, like merchants who deal in commodities or workers who deal in labour, sell at a higher price when demand rises in relation to supply, i.e. they make their services more difficult for the public to obtain at the very moment the public has the greatest need for them. We saw that the bank has to act in this way whether the notes it issues are convertible or inconvertible.

"The behaviour of the Bank of France in October 1855 gave rise to an ‘immense clamour’ (p. 4) and to a ‘great debate’ between it and the spokesmen of the public. Darimon summarizes, or pretends to summarize, this debate. We will follow him here only occasionally, since his synopsis displays the weak sides of both opponents, revealed in their constant desultory irrelevances. Groping about in extrinsic arguments. Each of the antagonists is at every moment dropping his weapon in order to search for another. Neither gets to the point of striking any actual blows, not only because they are constantly changing the weapons with which they are supposed to hit each other, but also because they hardly meet on one terrain before they take rapid flight to another."

I think there's a difference.

The Left (socialists, Marxists, communists, anarchists (IWW), et al did indeed help workers organize, unionize, and resist capitalists' exploitation. I don't see a parallel between aristocrats and leftists or workers. What are you reaching for in making that comparison? — BC

The Neutral Party:

I believe Frank misspoke here. Traditionally there was a functional relationship between the European nobility and their serfs. It was vaguely like the Moors, where the upper and lower classes form a happy duo. In the case of the Moors, the two were of different ethnicities, though.

As the forerunners of capitalists appeared, it was out of the serf class. It was people like Martin Luther, whose family struggled generation after generation to create a new class that stood apart from either the aristocracy or their slaves. It's here that the rift forms between aristocrats and the proto-capitalists. The aristocracy says it's counter to God's will for these insects to crawl up into the light of day. The new-born liberals say God gives them the right to stand up like human beings.

Luther's father started out a peasant, true, but he fairly quickly succeeded in being a miner, then a mine owner, then a business man (doing what, don't know. Probably something associated with mining. A man on the make. Sonny boy Martin was supposed to become a lawyer to assist his family in achieving further success, but instead went into a monastery where nobody would ever hear of him again, but he turned out to be quite successful as a change agent.

Moors? Moors? Bank of France in 1855? Darimon the Obscure? In what context are you writing, thinking?

As the forerunners of capitalists appeared, it was out of the serf class. — frank

Sure, because in the early medieval period there weren't any capitalists. The local Lord had the income of land rent (from peasants, yeomen, etc.) so didn't need to invest. The peasants, on the other hand, had very few assets above and beyond a strong back. With luck, opportunity, and hard work, a peasant could break into a micro business of some sort and then begin accumulating some cash, sort of like Luther's father. Or, the progress from peasant to capitalist might take a few generations.

We should distinguish here between "capitalists" and "industrialists". Early capitalists engaged in quite a few different businesses. Mines, factories, and the like were still small operations, This changed in the late 1700s into the early 1800s as steam power enabled bigger, heavier industry as such to exist. llllll

In what context are you writing, thinking? — BC

Just trying to figure the world out. Why all the angst toward "wokeness" and elitists? Why is the base of the Republican party made of blue-collar workers, while the Democrats have all the educated atheists?

I'm not saying every question has to have a profound answer, but it's interesting to notice how we emerged from the land of our ancestors.

Without the power of labor unions, American leftists just strayed off into nowhere. It's as you put it:

Academic leftists are perhaps somewhat analogous to a superannuated aristocracy. Most of them have just about zero connection with working class organizing or working class life. Struggling to explicate post-modern understanding within English Departments (et al) could just as well be taking place on Mars as at the local University. Some academics have risen from the ranks of the working class, but my guess is that most of them have been launched from the more favored middle class of professional families (or better). — BC

I was playing with the idea that to the extent that there is any leftism in America, it's a pose, like a poster of Che Guevara makes your meaningless life more worthwhile. They're just ghosts. But then, I'd like to see the world through their eyes. What do they see? How do you think they would explain their situation?

Sure, because in the early medieval period there weren't any capitalists. The local Lord had the income of land rent (from peasants, yeomen, etc.) so didn't need to invest. — BC

Proto-capitalists came into existence around the time of the crusades. They brought back goods from the middle east and sold them to nobles and clergymen. The re-established trade routes through Europe and eventually became the nuclei of European cities, which is a fascinating story. The point is that profit-making, as a European profession, did not pop into existence in the 1800s. You already knew that, though.

The point is that profit-making, as a European profession, did not pop into existence in the 1800s. — frank

A medieval history scholar said we know more about ancient societies (2000 - 3000 years ago) than we do about medieval society. That was several decades ago and historians have made progress, but whenever I read medieval history I am usually very surprised by what all was going on. It most definitely was not 'the dark ages'.

I was playing with the idea that to the extent that there is any leftism in America, it's a pose, like a poster of Che Guevara makes your meaningless life more worthwhile. — frank

I plead guilty (but the statute of limitations has expired). Back in the late 60s, a poster of Che, maybe Mao or Lenin, seemed meaningful. Now I'd call it virtue signaling. For roughly a year (1969-70) I received leftist instruction from a roommate who had been involved in Trotskyist groups at the U of I in Champaign Urbana. I picked up some of the names, and some of the lingo.

In the 1980s I had a real encounter with union organizing by participating in the Hormel Strike support group. The Hormel strikers lost, despite the heroic efforts of the support group to be supportive (tongue in cheek). But that was my first close encounter, at age 40 with an actual strike by actual blue-collar workers. They were all replaced at lower wages and worse working conditions. By that time I had become "a leftist" (sic).

Without the power of labor unions, American leftists just strayed off into nowhere. — frank

This is perceptive. Without workers leftists are irrelevant. To be more precise, there is a reciprocal relationship between workers consciously struggling for their own interests and the larger picture provided by Marxism. Leftists who do not have a workers' consciousness can not be leaders or advisers in any especially meaningful way. Lots of leftists do not, in fact, have such consciousness -- not because we are fakes and hypocrites, but because our education and experience has taught us to think of ourselves as professionals and managers--even if we are still clock-punching workers doing white collar service labor. Workers who do not see the larger picture are at a major disadvantage.

Just trying to figure the world out. Why all the angst toward "wokeness" and elitists? — frank

It's insubstantial social media chatter seeping into real life. Were one so inclined, one could do a history of social media trends, fads, and obsessions: Who started it on what platform; how it spread through various channels; where did it begin to be referenced as important; and so on. I think one would find that the hot issue of the moment (or year) owes little to real life, though it may have an effect on real life. Memes such as "the 2020 election was stolen" are UNTRUE, but have turned out to be quite powerful and/or destructive. "Stop the Steal", "Lock Her Up", "Sleepy Joe" and so on. "Racist", "homophobic", or "Transphobic" become clubs to bludgeon opponents (even though racism, and so on, are real).

In a word, "It's epiphenomenal". (Maybe that's the right word...)

I avoid paying much attention to all that crap.

A medieval history scholar said we know more about ancient societies (2000 - 3000 years ago) than we do about medieval society. That was several decades ago and historians have made progress, but whenever I read medieval history I am usually very surprised by what all was going on. It most definitely was not 'the dark ages'. — BC

:up:

I plead guilty (but the statute of limitations has expired). Back in the late 60s, a poster of Che, maybe Mao or Lenin, seemed meaningful. Now I'd call it virtue signaling. For roughly a year (1969-70) I received leftist instruction from a roommate who had been involved in Trotskyist groups at the U of I in Champaign Urbana. I picked up some of the names, and some of the lingo.

In the 1980s I had a real encounter with union organizing by participating in the Hormel Strike support group. The Hormel strikers lost, despite the heroic efforts of the support group to be supportive (tongue in cheek). But that was my first close encounter, at age 40 with an actual strike by actual blue-collar workers. They were all replaced at lower wages and worse working conditions. By that time I had become "a leftist" (sic). — BC

During the 1980s, did you have a sense of a change in zeitgeist to moral ambiguity? How were the 80s different from the 60s and 70s?

Lots of leftists do not, in fact, have such consciousness -- not because we are fakes and hypocrites, but because our education and experience has taught us to think of ourselves as professionals and managers--even if we are still clock-punching workers doing white collar service labor. Workers who do not see the larger picture are at a major disadvantage. — BC

So it's not that you would identify with the European aristocracy. It's just that you encounter leftism in college. A blue collar worker doesn't have that experience, so there's a rift.

Just trying to figure the world out. Why all the angst toward "wokeness" and elitists?
— frank

It's insubstantial social media chatter seeping into real life. Were one so inclined, one could do a history of social media trends, fads, and obsessions: Who started it on what platform; how it spread through various channels; where did it begin to be referenced as important; and so on. I think one would find that the hot issue of the moment (or year) owes little to real life, though it may have an effect on real life. Memes such as "the 2020 election was stolen" are UNTRUE, but have turned out to be quite powerful and/or destructive. "Stop the Steal", "Lock Her Up", "Sleepy Joe" and so on. "Racist", "homophobic", or "Transphobic" become clubs to bludgeon opponents (even though racism, and so on, are real).

In a word, "It's epiphenomenal". (Maybe that's the right word...)

I avoid paying much attention to all that crap. — BC

I guess, but the guys who attacked the capital on Jan-6 organized on-line. I think the internet helped Trump get elected. Maybe some of it seeps into real life?

I guess, but the guys who attacked the capital on Jan-6 organized on-line. I think the internet helped Trump get elected. Maybe some of it seeps into real life? — frank

The antecedents of the "proud boys" existed and operated before the internet: Militias, Ted kaczynski (the 'unibomber), Timothy McVeigh (blew up Oklahoma City federal courthouse in 1995), the Baader Meinhoff gang, aka the Red Army Faxtion--1980s in Germany, Dwight Armstrong, who blew up a mathematics building at the University of Wisconsin in 1970, or the John Birch Society, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan (right wing crazies), et al.

But it is certainly true that the Internet is now an essential tool for organizing and distributing information. Hey, in 1976 I was doing some organizing in the gay community and I had to put up posters on telephone poles and barroom bulletin boards!

Frequency illusion is related to memory. Now that you know about something, it appears to pop up more often. In reality, your new favorite song may have always been around. But because it's on your mind, you might start to notice it everywhere and, in turn, think that it's somehow become more popular.

The Internet feeds the 'frequency illusion' by magnifying bits of social detritus. Some dweeb "influencer" said something, it got posted on twitter then retweeted 10,000 times, and before long it's a movement. The better established mass media sucks up the inflated detritus and what was crap last week become official this week.

Then there are lots of topics that may get mentioned on the Internet and social media that do not follow this pattern. The problems of the chronically poor, organized labor, the uninsured, people just released from prison, and so on don't seem to make it through the various social media and mass media 'filters' to become movements.

The Internet helped elect Donald Trump because there was a real constituency--the older white well established right wing Republicans and the newer right wing of many working class whites. Bernie Sanders was able to attract outsized attention because there was a real constituency for a sort-of socialist elder among younger liberal/progressive voters, but not enough of them.

Hey, where am I getting all this? From the Internet, social media, mass media, public television, etc.

Hey, where am I getting all this? From the Internet, social media, mass media, public television, etc. — BC

I think a lot of what you said was logical, though. The internet is a funhouse mirror. Thanks for the insights!