Recently, Madeleine posted a piece “Why do we Never Learn?” and a commentator wrote back: “Gramsci nailed the answer to the question: Why don’t those who are exploited act on the basis of their exploitation? Because the ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. In America we can’t even use the word “class.”
Let’s talk about class, and other invidious distinctions: There are two ways in which people can be set up against each other through invidious distinctions: (1) The “horizontal” or “side-by-side” separation of groups from each other, for example religion against religion, ethnicity against ethnicity, region against region, gay against hetero, American against immigrant, Republican against Democrat, etc.
(2)“Vertical” or hierarchical rankings, for example social classes.
Invidious distinctions cause conflict and the vilification of religious, racial, sexual and other groups. Some groups become protected. After a while it becomes taboo to pick on certain ethnic, sexual and other categories. So new punching bags are found.
A few years ago, because the French didn’t support our Iraq folly, late night comedians like Jay Leno and Dennis Miller became popular ridiculing the French (they called them dirty, cowardly and lazy, haha).
Now, the public employees (and their unions) have become a popular target - they are called lazy, unproductive, they get fat pensions, etc.
“Commies” are no longer available, but attacking “socialists” works well.
But there is one invidious distinction for which Americans have ALWAYS had a blind spot: Social classes. Anonymous is so right!
The horizontal separations which pit group against group are destructive, divisive, immoral, and they serve no useful purpose. It is tempting to say that they are a divide-and-rule strategy for the ruling plutocracy, but that’s a bit simplistic.
But one thing is clear: the hierarchical distinction between social classes is incredibly important and real. It is about, injustice, oppression, concentration of power and wealth, exploitation, superiority and inferiority.
And yet, there is hardly any real awareness of social class in America. Oh sure, everyone knows that there is a middle class. But real class consciousness? Zero. And an appreciation of the enormous extent to which your life chances are determined by your social class? Or how social class is reproduced from one generation to the next? Maybe a few Sociology students who took Social Stratification know this.
But most of us continue to believe, blindly, that there are no social classes here. Because in the land of opportunity, anyone can become rich, if he works hard enough. This is called American Exceptionalism. And anyone who dares to talk about social class is said to be engaging in class warfare - positively un-American!
Take a look at the recently released report of the bipartisan deficit reduction commission appointed by Obama: Guiding principle #1: Keep government spending below 21% of GDP. Guiding principle #2: reduce corporate taxes. Guiding principle #3: increase taxes for the middle class, for example by reducing the home mortgage interest deduction. It’s shameless. They don’t even try to hide their agenda any more: reduce the taxes of the rich and increase the taxes of the working class.
Well, there is at least one group which possesses class consciousness, maintains class solidarity, acts upon its self-interest and engages in effective class warfare: the plutocracy. leave comment here
9 comments:
There are definitely social classes in the US and I think a lot of people are aware of them. Certainly that is one thing that has the Tea Party folks upset. Many of them are former middle-class now lower-middle class people with jobs that can't make ends meet. They are upset by all the concentrated power, government earmarks, and lavish spending on Wall Street with money that has been incrementally taken away.
The one point I would disagree with you is corporate taxes. Corporate taxes punish jobs and the economy, it is much better to tax the income paid to corporate officers and paid out in dividends. Corporate taxes are a reason that corporation throw lavish parties and seek offshore operations. They hurt the entire economy.
Interesting! Paul Krugman says
much the same though his commentary is phrased in economic rather than social
class terms.
Good sociology. Enjoy Thanksgiving.
Thank for your comments.
Gordon: I have often commented on Tea Party anger, and like Bill Clinton, I feel their pain. What strikes us as tragic is that the anger is mis-directed. Granted that most of the power elite is "in cahoots together," the Tea Party has tended to opt not for the lesser of two evils, but for the worst, or, to use a different metaphor, to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
As to corporate taxes vs. other taxes, you have no argument with me there. I thought I was pretty clear as to my position.
Anonymous: yes, Krugman is a wise man (after all, he agrees with me, haha).
Anonymous: you must be a sociologist.
Tom argues that reducing corporate taxes is reducing taxes for the rich. Gordon argues that it is the reverse, because corporate taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer, investor or shareholder. But in disproportionate amounts.
It would be better if corporations weren't treated as human beings, but for what they really are - profit seeking abstractions.
Reducing or eliminating corporate taxes and taxing the shareholders and investors proportionally would be better and more democratic. I agree with Gordon.
Okay, I guess I was sloppy, not distinguishing between taxing corporations vs. taxing corporate executives and major shareholders, and their income and their dividends.
Some questions, though:
1. How high corporate taxes are in various countries has been the topic of discussion on NPR’s Marketplace several times in recent months. There are those who say that American corporate taxes are among the highest, but others point out that this only seems that way, because our allegedly very high rates are offset by major corporate tax deductions which other countries don’t allow. And when I argue against corporate tax reductions, I obviously include these deductions in my argument.
2. How do “corporations” spend the money which they save, when taxed at lower rates? By funding political campaigns?
3. The relationship between reducing corporate taxes and job creation is not clear at all.
Maybe a real economist can help us out.
Tom:
An excellent article that explains some of it is in The Atlantic
I very much enjoy your and Madeleine’s articles and this most recent one I forwarded to my husband. He had this comment below. Thanks again and keep them coming!
Happy Thanksgiving,
E.K.
This is very well put. My only quibble is that “American Exceptionalism” usually refers to the belief that America is specially selected by God for a unique place in the world and therefore does not have to play by the rules that others do. Not that everybody can become rich.
Otherwise, yes, the main point is right on. America is under hypnosis.
Thanks for your comments, anonymous and E.K's husband.
I am checking out the Atlantic article.
As to the expression, "American Exceptionalism," it has different meanings, depending on one's source. I am sure that one important meaning is precisely the one you describe. A religious connotation, tied with Manifest Destiny, etc.
But sociologists every since C. Wright Mils and even Lloyd Warner, the first person to systematically study social class in this country, also often speak of many Americans' belief that this society is unique and exceptional in that it has no permanent social classes, because in the land of opportunity, upward mobility is available to everyone.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!