,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
this is attractive, because it’s fun to blame the not-plutocrat-but-still rich class.
but it is also wrong, individualizing as “choice” phenomena so unpleasant yet ubiquitous there are obviously stronger pressures than he describes, and, most importantly, pitting the class 1/
but it is also wrong, individualizing as “choice” phenomena so unpleasant yet ubiquitous there are obviously stronger pressures than he describes, and, most importantly, pitting the class 1/
whose support social democracy most requires against the middle-class and poor, when in fact this class’ interests are largely shared with the rest. these are marionettes temporarily and precariously and desperately elevated, who would do much better with social insurance than 2/
playing mini me with the plutocrats and hoping they remain in favor.
most of practical politics is about the class consciousness of the petit bourgeois: when they identify as the bourgeois they are reaganites, railing against takers. when they feel petit, precarious, they 3/
most of practical politics is about the class consciousness of the petit bourgeois: when they identify as the bourgeois they are reaganites, railing against takers. when they feel petit, precarious, they 3/
make common cause with the working class and social democracy can advance. sewing division between the “upper middle class” and the rest of the precariot is the usual divide and conquer strategy of capitalists and colonialists, elevate an elite (in race, class, an 4/
intersection) then let the workers fight them while the truly dominant class, the people who would never think fret over big-city housing costs or paying sticker price at Harvard, pretend to be just like them, theirs in solidarity. /fin
