The
corporate media either avoid the concept of “class” or make it
virtually meaningless. The New York Times restricts “working class”
to workers who lack a college education and typically perform manual
work, while “middle class” designates more educated workers
performing “white collar” jobs. The “middle class” is then
situated between the “working class” and the rich.
This
division only obscures the deep convergence in the life experiences
and interests of these workers. Those who lack higher education can
make more money than those with college degrees, if they have a
strong union. Many teachers with college degrees are barely scraping
by. All workers share fundamental interests: the desire for job
security, a comfortable wage, full health care benefits, a secure
pension, job safety, and to be treated with dignity at work. It makes
much more sense to merge these groups into a single working-class
category.
Not
surprisingly, a term like “capitalist class” is missing in most
mainstream publications. Because the corporate media has slashed the
definition of the working class, the term “socialist” has been
rendered almost meaningless. But people who own large businesses and
employ workers have their own set of common interests and are highly
organized. They want to be able to layoff or fire workers easily.
They want regulations on corporations reduced in order to compete
effectively. They are usually anti-union because they would like to
suppress wages, again for competitive reasons. The antagonistic class
interests between workers and capitalists then give rise to an
ongoing struggle in pursuit of their respective interests.
In
the 1930s the working class rose up and through massive
demonstrations and strikes succeeded in pressuring politicians to
impose restraints on their employers. By winning the right to
unionize, workers were able to expand unionization until 35 percent
of the workforce was covered. This was a major cause of the rising
standard of living of the working class during the late 1940s, 1950s
and 1960s.
However,
during the 1970s the corporations launched their counter offensive.
They started playing hardball with union organizing and gradually
succeeded in reducing the unionized workforce to its current rate of
10.5 percent. The standard of living of the working class has
experienced a steady decline.
1.
Between 2003 and 2013 the net worth of the median household
dropped 36 percent.
2.
Between 1999 and 2014 income of the median household dropped by
over $4000 a year.
3.
In 2013 labor compensation as a share of the economy dropped to
its lowest point since 1948.
4.
Involuntary part-time work has grown 40% since 2000.
5.
The number of hours people in a household work has gone way up
as women have entered the labor market to help the family make ends
meet. In 1960 slightly more than 40 percent of women between 25 and
54 were in the workforce. In 2018 the number was slightly less than
80 percent. The need for both adults in the family to work has placed
significant strain on the household.
6.
Traditional pensions, which are a relatively secure retirement
plan, have dropped. In the past they covered almost half of the
workforce. Now they cover less than one-fifth. Instead, more workers
have 401k retirement plans, which usually provide less money for
retirees and, because they are tied to the stock market, are not
guaranteed. Hence, it is now predicted that half of California
retirees will face “significant economic hardship” when they
retire.
7.
Inequalities in wealth have been constantly expanding. In the
1940s and 50s, 73 percent of newly created wealth went to the bottom
90% of the population. Now virtually all new wealth goes to the
wealthiest 10% of the population.
While
the corporate media has supplied plenty of statistics in terms of
median household income and household net worth, they fail to connect
the decline of the working class with class struggle. It takes
someone like the billionaire Warren Buffett to bring this concept
into public discourse: “There’s class warfare, all right,
but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re
winning.”
For
Sanders, socialism is little more than a New
Deal program. But somehow this qualifies as socialism. Instead of
labeling Bernie Sanders a socialist, it would be much more accurate
to define him as a “progressive capitalist,” where “progressive”
means wanting to introduce reforms that will help the working class
within the bounds of capitalism. While Sanders might have played the
role of a catalyst in the DSA growth, he is not the cause. Instead,
the looming environmental catastrophe which capitalist politicians
refuse to abate, students graduating deeply in debt, the high cost of
housing in major US cities, steadily rising health care costs, and
the longstanding decline in the standard of living of the working
class have led the youth to question the merits of capitalism.
Without
a clear class perspective, socialists can also be led to believe that
working within the Democratic Party will secure important gains for
the working class. Although the Democratic Party is sometimes called
a “friend of labor” and unions have given Democrats generous
contributions in an attempt to buy favors, it is a capitalist party
both in form and content. It programmatically embraces capitalism.
The
Democratic Party can brag that it is the lesser evil when compared
with the Republican Party. But the results of the working class
relying on the Democratic Party have been disastrous: The standard of
living of the working class has been in a steady decline whether the
Democrats or the Republicans hold the reins of government. And this
should come as no surprise. After all, the objective role of the
Democratic Party is to politically disarm the working class and keep
it disorganized. As Marx and Engels insisted: “The emancipation of
the working class must be achieved by the working class itself.”
Working within the Democratic Party and electing candidates who are
content with reforming capitalism will only create barriers to
building socialism.
Reforms
to capitalism can be achieved incrementally, but they are always
tenuous. They exist only until the capitalist class decides to mount
a counter offensive. However, the abolition of capitalism and its
replacement with socialism require a complete break and a seismic
overturn. The working class must see its interests as directly
opposed to those of the capitalist class. It
must overthrow the capitalist class, take control of the state, and
then proceed to construct a new society that operates in the
interests of the vast majority.
TAKEN and ADAPTED FROM HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment