The new class divide?


By D. J. Webb

I need to think more carefully about this. But it’s dawned on me that the Trump phenomenon is important, not because of Donald J. Trump, but rather in terms of a broader realignment of politics. Put simply, the left-right divide is pretty exhausted, appearing to reflect the politics of the Cold War. The new alignment is more Us v. Them, the People vs. the 1%, the Populists vs. the Establishment.

This is a class divide of sorts, in that anyone in control of the public-private sector managerial class supports the globalization agenda. They are the real ruling class — and not the famed capitalists or bourgeoisie. By continuing with anti-capitalist politics, many “left-wing” activists have failed to realize that they’re supporting the one-percenters’ agenda. They support mass immigration, the big state, controls on speech and the disaggregation of the demos via multiculturalism. How is any of this really “left-wing” and “anti-Establishment”? Left-wingers quite wrongly view themselves as radical and anti-Establishment because they soldier on with the fake left-right distinction, which doesn’t reflect the politics of a managerial society.

At the same time, the “right” has adopted cultural Marxism wholesale, because it is in the interests of the 1%. Conservatives are by nature pro-business, but they have failed to realise that there is no entrepreneurial bourgeois capitalist class nowadays: their “pro-business” credentials have devolved into supporting the cultural agenda of the Establishment, precisely because Conservatives view themselves as pro-elite. By supporting the cultural Marxist agenda, the conservatives traduce all their former values. Libertarians fall into the same trap, of supporting free borders and state propaganda on race, sex, sexuality, etc. The so-called “left libertarians” do not recognize that there is no left-right divide, and that they are just pro-Establishment mouthpieces, retailing the ideology by means of which the 1% keep control.

Take, for example, Donald Trump’s “problem with women”. There is no obvious reason why women should support the 1% or elite plans to hold down wages via immigration or dissolve the nation (and thus the possibility of elite accountability to the demos) via immigration. Yet the 1% continue to exploit cultural divisions to remain in control, most notably in the form of abortion and the more inchoate dislike some women may feel when they see a rich and unattractive businessman “sponsor” a succession of supermodel wives in the manner of a Sugar Daddy. “Feminism” thrives where politics is conceived as a left-right contest, as the “left” constantly demands that the “right” take ever more strenuous efforts to prove they have truly modernized on cultural issues such as feminism. Trump ought to reorient the discussion in the form of “the 1% versus the People”: most women are not in the 1%, and should reject the efforts of 1% globalizers to wield such cultural issues to buttress their social control. Do American women really want to see wages undercut by immigrants and jobs shipped overseas? Why should women align themselves with the 1%?

The awkwardness of the realignment of politics is that it is not 1% versus 99% — which would be no contest, arithmetically speaking. This is because many middle-class professionals support the 1%. So the populist end of the political divide contains many working-class people who were previously discouraged voters: many of these may not turn up on Election Day to vote. The cultural flaw of Anglo-Saxon societies — the tendency towards sanctimony and self-righteousness — means that the professional class side morally with the 1%.

We can try to morally rearm the populist end of the discussion. Issues such as feminist support for immigrant rape show that most of the “moral” component of the elite ideologies is bunkum. When push comes to shove, the women being raped are shoved under the bus in order to keep the elite’s demographic change on track. The Munk debate between Louise Arbour, Simon Schama, Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage showed clearly that women’s issues were always a feint used to establish the 1%’s control. Grand feminists are prepared to laugh at gang rape of toddlers if need be in order to defend immigration.

But more to the point: we should reject the entire moral discussion. We ought to support our interests. There is nothing wrong in viewing ourselves (English people, white people, etc) as people with interests to defend. The populists, the people, the silent majority, whatever you call them, need to unabashedly enunciate their own interests against those of the Establishment. The class divide that corresponds to the real configuration of society is the managerial elite vs. the rest. Unless we have political classes that are articulated to that interest divide in society, we will lose and carry on losing. Donald Trump may have done us all a favour by galvanising the People as a political force.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The new class divide?

    • Thanks Baloo! Another aspect of this is free market ideology: people vote right to stop immigration (which never happens), only to find they’re voting for a spiteful bunch of people slashing disabled benefits etc. As Sean Gabb has mentioned, we need to divorce the free market stuff from the cultural stuff: people actually want a welfare safety net, with no immigration. Donald Trump has made clear he does not support a healthcare system that has people dying in the streets. So you can appeal to the people with the maintenance of some spending programmes that are important to them, while also supporting the people on cultural issues. As far as the Libertarian Alliance’s support for the free market is concerned, you have to first factor in the constant manipulation of house prices upwards. If average house prices were £75K and not £200K in this country, as they should be, then people would have so much more money to spend and to save up for their own rainy days. But all the money disappears on rents and mortgages, leaving people in a position where they need benefits and tax credits. Getting house prices down (at least halving them) has to be the first step in any real free-market ideology, and without doing that, we should all be very careful about supporting the free marketeers… We are witnessing a new class divide emerge that solves all these problems.

      • “But all the money disappears on rents and mortgages, leaving people in a position where they need benefits and tax credits.”

        Another reason why the “makers vs takers” meme is useless. If the government spends money on you against your will (building new motorways you will never use, putting you through compulsory schooling, bailing out banks etc) then you may constitute a “taker”. If you work for a business which the government protects against competition, then you become a “maker”.

  1. Isn’t this divide between the ‘Elite’ and ‘the People’ (or however you want to label those two groups), just a re-iteration of the old class divide – one might say, the ancient class divide – between workers and owners?

    In reality, Trump doesn’t represent ‘the People’. He represents the Elite. He probably hardly gives ‘the People’ a second thought. He works for himself and the interests of capitalists like him who favour a more nationalistic approach to managing capitalism. His slogan is ‘Make America Great Again’, but America can’t be made great again. It has to be dissolved, just as the Founding Fathers would have predicted, as their understanding of power presaged Acton. They knew that the United States would eventually fail and ‘the People’ would end up with someone like Trump: a pseudo-tycoon propped-up with funny money. Trump represents the corruption of power, not the redemption of America. He is the apotheosis of the very forces that the cynical Founders knew would eventually bring the country down. The constitutional mechanisms they put in place could only slow down human nature – they could never stop it. America is now a plutocracy, or at best, a polyarchy. There has to be a Third Revolution (the Second Revolution was the failed Southern revolt).

    The question I ask against the backdrop of the world’s events is whether the revolution will be class-based or national, or somehow a combination of these? Fascism (which is derived directly from Marxian socialism), National Socialism and Maoism (the East Asian equivalent of national-socialism but practised under the banner of ‘communism’) are the closest attempts to date at explicitly synergising class and national consciousness within the working class. But the problem that nationalists have is that a national revolution can never address the fundamental problems that capitalism causes in human existence. Fascism, National Socialism and Maoism are, and were, all capitalist systems in practice, whatever their rhetoric might have claimed, as was the Soviet Union and also the entire Eastern Bloc. A national revolution would result in a government led by somebody like Trump. The inescapable logic is that nationalism is not truly revolutionary at all unless it is also accompanied by ‘socialism’ – i.e. a system of society that abolishes class so that the social relationship to capital of everyone is one of equality. I accept this could also take on a non-socialist form, as a libertarian society, though I have my doubts as to whether market libertarianism is viable as a long-term proposition, as I believe all market systems must ‘degenerate’ into capitalism.

    ‘Make America Great Again’ is Trumpspeak for ‘Keep America As It Is’, because Trump is not a socialist. Trump represents business as usual, just under a different brand. A Trump America will be liberal, capitalist and multi-racial. However, I understand the point being made, which I have made myself, that this isn’t really about Trump per se. The point is that Trumpist politics shifts the Overton window and re-adjusts political expectations, etcetera and so on. My view is that, for true revolutionary nationalism to succeed in the long-run, it would be better if Trump loses. Ironically, for the Left, and for the elite, it would probably be better if Trump wins. A Trump presidency would keep white America asleep, whereas a Trump defeat would galvanise disaffected white Americans, and possibly serve as a foundation for a truly effective (and possibly violent) white rebellion.

    The author rightly points to the alignment of the Left’s objectives with those of the Right (or the ‘elite’), but this is does not invalidate the Left’s arguments or justify Trump or other populist movements. The Left wish to deconstruct Western societies morally and culturally, without any loyalty to their own civilisation or race, while the mainstream Right wish to maximise opportunities for surplus value and keep the existing wage-slave societies of the West running by importing pliable, non-unionised immigrants – again, without any loyalty to their own civilisation or race.

    Trump claims to be an American nationalist, but I don’t see how Trump would, or could, stop either of these? Maybe somebody could explain? The Wall, even if constructed, means nothing. There is already a secure border along the southern US border, and it does no good. There will be enough caveats in Trump’s initiative to ensure that as many Mexicans as necessary will flow across that border, just as before. Under a Trump presidency, all the right noises will be made, all the right verbs and cadences will be enunciated, but the socio-economic paradigm of liberal internationalism will remain in force.

    The Left (really, the left-wing of capitalism) sees an opportunity in neo-liberalism, in that non-white immigrants are perhaps more likely to want to rebel against the capitalist social order, and moreover, the problems caused by mass immigration will also ruin the West, as the Left knows, which they hope will bring down capitalism. These two major ideological groups, while opposed, are both racially- (i.e. civilisationally-) treasonous and have been working hand-in-glove for some time. Thatcherism, for instance, would not have been possible without the social liberalisation that took place in Britain from the 1950s onwards, but the objectives of the Left are deeper than just ‘Cultural Marxism’ or any other type of kulturkampf. They are not pursuing degeneracy for its own sake. Yes, much of what the Left (and socialists and Marxists) say and advocate aligns or coheres with the interests of raw internationalist capitalism, but that will not trouble those among the Left who have a Marxian or neo-Marxist understanding of things. The whole basis of the Marxist critique is that capitalism is riddled with inherent contradictions that must be exploited and accentuated if worker class consciousness is to arise and capitalism as a system is to fall. There are also some among the Left who seek attenuation of capitalism’s contradictions, as well as, or instead of, accentuation, and they probably account for the majority: but, to paraphrase Lenin, most of those are Marxism’s ‘useful idiots’. They serve as the unconscious vanguard, the soft underbelly, that the more conscious and ideological inner core instrumentalises. That, essentially, is what much of the social democratic Left is.

    All these different threads are not easy to resolve into something coherent, which is why I can understand that people are attracted to the certainty of ideologies and other dogmatic positions. Politics can be as baffling as quantum physics because it is about human flaws and priorities.

    I still hold the view that those of us who want a freer society in the long-run – whether it takes a market-based or socialist/co-operative form – have to confront the West’s historic error in allowing mass immigration and our generation will have to pay the price in authoritarian measures to remedy this.

    As to why this will be difficult to implement, I think it has to be the last paragraph of the original post gets to the real point:

    [quote]”…we should reject the entire moral discussion. We ought to support our interests. There is nothing wrong in viewing ourselves (English people, white people, etc.) as people with interests to defend. The populists, the people, the silent majority, whatever you call them, need to unabashedly enunciate their own interests against those of the Establishment. The class divide that corresponds to the real configuration of society is the managerial elite vs. the rest. Unless we have political classes that are articulated to that interest divide in society, we will lose and carry on losing. Donald Trump may have done us all a favour by galvanising the People as a political force.”[unquote]

    The moral discourse just serves as a front for the mediation of different interested groups in society, but moralising also helps the elite occlude the articulation of actual vested interests. To bring all this back home to Britain – White British people have a vested interest in maintaining Britain as an overwhelmingly white society, due to a need for a shared identity and a shared genetic destiny, and more prosaically, there is also a need to maintain living standards and the imbibed culture, law and social norms, and so on, that we know and are used to. Few of us here want to live in a Third World society, so naturally, we don’t want to import Third World people. These arguments are easy enough to make, so why aren’t they put more effectively than they are? Why does the mainstream only tolerate the implied racialism of UKIP rather than the explicit racialism of, say, the BNP? Isn’t the latter more pressing and urgent, given the circumstances?

    If racialism can be demonised and integrationism and racial equality can be retailed as moral virtues, then the elites can in effect side-step real political arguments in favour of bogus arguments that allow the racial interests of the majority to be trampled on. As the author identifies, social shaming and peer pressure are very powerful in Anglo-Saxon societies especially. Most people don’t want to be seen as ‘racist’ or ‘anti-Semitic’ and few have the stomach or backbone to defy ordinary social pressures. This tells us that, from an evolutionary perspective, white people have a flaw. We have developed a strong ‘moral’ facility and this has been observed and studied by outsiders, probably for millennia, and is now being exploited very effectively.

    I suspect we once roamed the planet and have been backed into this corner, Europe, losing many wars along the way – we may now be witnessing the ‘final battle’. That’s sad, but can you and I do anything about it? Everything has to die eventually. The author mentions the gap between the interests of activist feminists and ordinary women in the West, but I would say that women, unfortunately, are part of the problem. By allowing women the vote, giving them civic and political equality, we have allowed female nature to control public debate and national priorities, with the results we see around us.

      • You mean: “IN MY OPINION, it’s the ancient class divide between rulers and the ruled”.

        My own opinion is that ‘class analysis’ is meaningless (or at least, not of much use) unless it is tethered to an understanding of the social relationship of people to capital and land in society.

        I don’t think it can simply be ‘rulers’ and ‘ruled’ because that doesn’t tell us what makes the rulers able to be rulers and what puts the ruled in the position of being ruled. These social divisions are not divinely ordained and do not arise just because people believe in it or think it ‘just’ or necessary.

        Obviously, there will be an element of psychology and biology involved in explaining social organisation, even among humans. I am a materialist – but in genetic sense as much as the historic. Marxian analysis may explain class divisions, but it doesn’t tell us why we need the explanation.

        Even so, I think if we ask the question based on your dichotomy: ‘Why do we have rulers and ruled?’, then we then arrive at the answer: that the rulers in our society are people who own large amounts of capital, and as the author of the original article states, these people make up about 1% of the population.

        The ruled are the rest of us, the 99%. Some of us own small amounts of capital or hold nominal ownership of capital – stocks, shares and mortgaged properties – but we are still workers, because we are either employed or self-employed.

        Some of the 99% are ‘petty capitalists’, in that they are not strictly workers but own businesses, but even they are not in a position to rule and remain in a similar position to workers.

    • ….”To bring all this back home to Britain – White British people have a vested interest in maintaining Britain as an overwhelmingly white society, due to a need for a shared identity and a shared genetic destiny, and more prosaically, there is also a need to maintain living standards and the imbibed culture, law and social norms, and so on, that we know and are used to. Few of us here want to live in a Third World society, so naturally, we don’t want to import Third World people. These arguments are easy enough to make, so why aren’t they put more effectively than they are? Why does the mainstream only tolerate the implied racialism of UKIP rather than the explicit racialism of, say, the BNP? Isn’t the latter more pressing and urgent, given the circumstances?

      If racialism can be demonised and integrationism and racial equality can be retailed as moral virtues, then the elites can in effect side-step real political arguments in favour of bogus arguments that allow the racial interests of the majority to be trampled on. As the author identifies, social shaming and peer pressure are very powerful in Anglo-Saxon societies especially. Most people don’t want to be seen as ‘racist’ or ‘anti-Semitic’ and few have the stomach or backbone to defy ordinary social pressures. This tells us that, from an evolutionary perspective, white people have a flaw. We have developed a strong ‘moral’ facility and this has been observed and studied by outsiders, probably for millennia, and is now being exploited very effectively.

      I suspect we once roamed the planet and have been backed into this corner, Europe, losing many wars along the way – we may now be witnessing the ‘final battle’. That’s sad, but can you and I do anything about it? Everything has to die eventually. The author mentions the gap between the interests of activist feminists and ordinary women in the West, but I would say that women, unfortunately, are part of the problem. By allowing women the vote, giving them civic and political equality, we have allowed female nature to control public debate and national priorities, with the results we see around us….”

      I think this is a very clear analysis of the situation, considering my own travels into wrestling with the demons of our present time.

      I have to assume that you’re being coy though when it comes to the questions being posed about why certain arguments are not and often cannot be put forward. I suspect we both know how we have collectively arrived at such a bizarre position as a civilisation – which is through design rather than by accident.

      It is within this sphere that the likes of Donald Trump and UKIP tend to sit. They ARE the establishment, but compared to most everyday lunacy from the more mainstream establishment, they seem to be radical and outside of the system.

      People often claim that Donald is a raging sexist, a racist, a fascist, a “hater” and so on – the same kinds of labels Nigel Farage has to contend with – but where is the real evidence for any of this? Of course, it is never really there – other than in the media portrayal and the opinion pieces of the controlled media, particularly in the United States.

      The latter has piece after piece associating Donald Trump to being “Hitler 2.0”, that he is dangerous, divisive, hateful, stirring up fear, and so on.

      Why? Because he said he wants to deport illegal immigrants and build a wall to keep illegal immigrants and criminals out. That is simply upholding the law and ensuring there is a nation at all.

      Or, because he wanted a halt to mass Muslim immigration to the United States, which is growing at a pace, because he sees what is becoming of France, Sweden, Germany, Britain, Belgium….. Or because he once re-tweeted something about the crime rates of Black Americans…..which anybody worth their salt knows makes a point that is undeniably and demonstrably true. It is a fact.

      They are hardly radical positions. They are perfect common sense. The trouble is of course that so many people are trained to reject it because it falls foul of egalitarianism, blank slate theories, diversity is strength messages, white guilt attitudes, feminism and other trapping attitudes of our time.

      UKIP and Donald Trump would be truly dangerous to liberalism if they really declared what was necessary and what was the truth of certain matters. But they won’t do this – because they are not those kinds of people. It is not on their radar. They are just swimming in the lake provided to them to swim in.

      This endless dancing around the vitals, to the tune of our opposition and ingrained culture is probably why we get shafted not only here and the USA, but in Europe.

      Take for example the “refugee crisis”. Everybody is dealing with it as a “refugee crisis” – politicians here, there, the EU, international bodies, charities…. it is not being discussed nor treated as a civilisational threat to Europe and the subsequent erasure of European/Caucasian peoples for all time.

      This is why we get offered solutions of a “one in, one out” deal with Turkey…..to pacify the problem of all the “illegal migrants” people are (rightly) complaining about. Dealt with on this basis though, it leaves the politicians with the option of simply making the flows “legal”.

      The end result for Europe will be the same, though…..but people either can’t face up to this, don’t want to realise it, don’t want to admit it to themselves as the true source of their concern, and would rather try and simply eke out a life, slow it all down a bit, play it soft, not be judged, tickle around the edges, talking about schools hospitals, welfare……

      They are all important. They are all affected. Yet if the government could wave a magic wand and demolish all these kinds of obstacles – would it be preferable and acceptable to continue to make Europe and Britain the home of Middle East and Africa’s surplus population? If not, why not?

      Seeing as people are not mentally prepared to deal with these kinds of issues, and often refuse to do so, we are left at the mercy of the Donald Trump and Nigel Farage of the political world to inadvertently “nudge” things along on the soft track.

      People make out that they are hardcore figures, radicals, and imply all sorts of things about them that are not even true. It is a manufactured hysteria, in my view.

      Those who are genuinely more hardcore and seeking a new paradigm outside of the old left/right compartments have little option but to try and grasp hold of whatever benefit they can – even when they know it is a false choice ultimately.

      • Yes, the real issues are being avoided or spoken about in coded language [dog-whistling] or subtly implied, or addressed indirectly. People have various motives for this intellectual evasion and dishonesty, mainly cowardice and the need to ‘fit in’ with normal society, start a family and get along the women, etc.

        Some intellectuals on the Right do it because they think subtlety equates to cleverness. They regard people like me, who like to state things plainly, as rather uncouth and a liability. To those people, I would say: ‘cleverness isn’t clever’. Consider that the unclever results of your ‘cleverness’ are all around us. I also think that the duty of an intellectual – a true intellectual – is to follow his own thinking to wherever it takes him, and to state his conclusions plainly, no matter how uncomfortable or unpopular the result might be. In my opinion, a false or pseudo-intellectual is detectable by the evident falsity or insincerity of his conclusions. I can’t be ‘politic’ about the issues of the day, when they affect the very civilisation that defines the terms of my day-to-day existence.

        Take the owners of this site, as a case in point. I have some sympathy with the Libertarian Alliance in this regard. It is courageous to speak about these issues explicitly, but nobody will thank you for it. Quite the opposite, some people will hate you for it, especially if they think you are speaking the truth. The very worst thing you can do is tell people the truth. And who wants to go to prison, or squander a lucrative publishing contract, or lose an academic post? Hands up. I doubt there are many takers. There is an understandable instinct for self-preservation at work.

        Just going back to America (I find American politics much more interesting than in my home country, Britain), I don’t think a Trump presidency will make a great deal of difference to the matters we are discussing here – though I could be wrong, and certainly if he wins the general election, I will be hoping that I am wrong. My view is that the worst outcome is a Trump presidency because Trump’s role is to keep white America aneasthetised. Trump himself doesn’t know this, or if he does, he doesn’t think like this, but Trump possibly doesn’t grasp the limitations of the U.S. presidency. Business is a dictatorial endeavour and he is used to simply governing organisations by dictat. He has experience in New York politics and knows about bipartisan deal-making, but he won’t be accustomed to having to compromise and accept retreats and defeats as he battles with Congress and the judiciary, and state governments, which historically is the way things have been for almost-all presidents in the U.S. federal system, with its checks and balances. In a very real sense, the U.S. presidency is a job for ‘losers’ – and certainly anti-climactic. Many years ago, a rather eminent political science professor cryptically told me that politics is for losers, but he didn’t say that politicians are losers. I thought he was trying to discourage the much younger and left-wing version of me from entering politics, which was my burning desire at the time. I now sort of understand what he was really trying to tell me.

        Quite apart from the practical limitations of government, I also find the summary Trump credo on all matters to do with trade and immigration, and other matters, somewhat contradictory. The United States is supposed to be a federal republic. Shouldn’t commerce and trade be a matter for individual states? Even important aspects of immigration should, arguably, be decided by state governments rather than the federal government. Maybe somebody more familiar with American federalism can fill us in, but if Trump is so concerned with localising things, he could start with some of his own ideas. Looking at matters from a distance, I would certainly welcome greater localisation and ‘de-federalisation’ if it encourages ethnic Balkanisation – a necessary prelude to the constitutional dissolution of a country that, in my opinion, is well past its sell-by date.

        The United States is too large, geographically and demographically, and it no longer coheres, if it ever did. The awkward and unpopular truth, I think, is that the USA has run its course and is ripe for dissolution. As I have said before on here, if the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be entirely unimpressed by Donald Trump and at the same time unsurprised that a charlatan such as he was in the ascendency in times such as this. They would be calling for a violent revolt against the plutocracy in Washington, D.C., and the dissolution of the United States, not another general election.

        In reality, Trump is the plutocrat. He does not represent ‘The People’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s