When class disappears
This is almost 15 years old, but more true now than ever. Also, Thomas Frank at his best.
Its this last point thats most important. The culture war is a contest largely fought out between square corporate ideologues and hip corporate ideologues. According to legend, labor proved its unfriendliness to the lifestyle cause back in the Sixties and removed itself treasonably from the struggle to found irony nation. The result, 30 years later, is that our serious cultural conversation looks a lot like our daily newspaper strike coverage: Labor is just not in the picture; the culture war never leaves the confines of the free-market faith. Its more far-sighted partisans, like Richard Goldstein of the Village Voice, have given up the pretense altogether, correctly understanding the cozy cultural combat of recent years as little more than the victory dance of American capitalism. Where the business order goes, the culture war follows. Like the fight between Coke and Pepsi, the culture war is the American Way, extending its noisy battles over whatever local concerns are this years target of the new global order and transforming dissent into yet another prerogative of affluence.
The tradeoff between lifestyle and labor has been so direct that its hard to imagine that these two features of contemporary American lifeone triumphant, one in total eclipsearent connected in some cosmic fashion. Its as though the revolutionary legacy of the Sixties somehow effaced the revolutionary legacy of the Thirties; as though workers had to be put back in their place so that rebel lifestylers could take their pleasure properly; as though urban deindustrialization had to happen so the rest of us could enjoy our authentic-proletarian conversion lofts in peace.
The culture wars have also helped to make plausible the otherwise bizarre fantasy common in contemporary management theory: that information-age capitalism has made moot what the Victorians gently called the social question. Ad-man Dru suggests that by means of disruptionhis dramatic term for strategic attacks on social conventionlifestyle marketers have permanently replaced the extra-corporate left altogether. For Dru audacity is more than just the quality we admire in such figures as Martin Luther King, George Bernard Shaw, and Robert Kennedyits the secret to brand success. Dru blithely presents a catalog of successfully disruptive brands that says more about the decline of the labor left than a dozen PBS specials about Rush Limbaugh: The great brands of this end of the century are those that have succeeded in conveying their vision by questioning certain conventions, whether its Apples humanist vision, which reverses the relationship between people and machines; Benettons libertarian vision, which overthrows communication conventions; Microsofts progressive vision, which topples bureaucratic barriers; or Virgins anticonformist vision, which rebels against the powers that be. The Body Shop owns compassion, Nike spirituality, Pepsi and MTV youthful rebellion. We used to have movements for change; now we have products.
Full essay from Baffler No. 9, 1997: http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/when-class-disappears
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)What I didn't see though was a description of the FAILURES of the labor movement and union membership that led to this predicament. That would be informative.
To me the end of labor's relevance occurred when large numbers of union members sided with republicans in Sixties on a variety of culture war and other issues. That got us Nixon and ultimately reagan. It was "chickens for Col. Sanders" time in America. The unions cut their own throats and were glad to do so if it meant taking care of the "welfare cheats" (code words: African Americans), "hippies", and "godless pinko commies". The right wing wedge issues pulled in union members by the droves. Union leadership supported republicans. The Teamsters endorsed Nixon.
It has been downhill ever since.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)It was a two way street. The large unions really were corrupt, and actively excluded (or worse) minorities and women. But just as neither Nixon or W. were reasons for abandoning democracy, neither were corruption, racism, and chauvinism reasons for abandoning unions. Yet we seem to have done both, or at least we've done the latter and we're trying our damn best to get to the former.