Base and Superstructure

Thoughts on production, alienation, and ideology

Page 89 of 112

Who’s Part of the Working Class?

You might have the idea I think and talk a lot about class. It’s true. But I tend to write about class in general. For example, I’ve argued against using ‘class’ as a marker of socioeconomic status (SES) and in favor of using it as a marker of certain relations of economic power. On the other hand, I haven’t written a great deal about specific classes, like the working class. I’ve said a bit about what the working class isn’t, namely Trump’s base. But a bit less about what it is.

Let’s remedy that. Specifically, let’s zoom in on the working class. Who’s in it? Is it smaller than it used to be? Did deindustrialization defeat it? And, if so, do we now use ‘working class’ as a marker of identity rather than economic relations?

I’ll work through some of these questions.

Continue reading

5 Corners of the Democratic Party?

In a two-party system, parties become a bit of everything. This raises the question: What, exactly, is the Democratic Party? Who or what drives it? The blog 538 took a couple of cracks at this. Most notably, Nate Silver wrote about the ‘5 Corners‘ of the Democratic Party. And that’s what I’m going to look at in this post. His colleague Perry Bacon Jr., in a post on Democratic Party politicians, wrote about the party’s ‘Six Wings‘. Does Silver (or Bacon) get it right?

Continue reading

The Ethnic Restaurateur

So, here’s the thing. I find the intersection of food and politics compelling. Often very compelling. Know what I don’t find compelling? The writing people do at the intersection of food and politics. But then I found out about this book: The Ethnic Restaurateur.

And it sounded promising! Krishnendu Ray comfortably crosses the worlds of food and theory, and I think he gives us plenty worthwhile in The Ethnic Restaurateur.

Continue reading

The Electability Dilemma

Let’s start with an argument. It’s a general argument about electability, but that’s no fun. Instead, I’ll use the more provocative case of Bernie Sanders. The motivating claim is that electability stands in tension with systemic change. Or, to put it differently, that not being a threat to the capitalist system is a prerequisite to attaining electability. Replace ‘Bernie Sanders’ with any other candidate and it works roughly the same. With other candidates, it’s usually so obvious it approaches triviality.

Here’s the argument.

1. Either Bernie Sanders is electable or he isn’t.
2. If Bernie Sanders is electable, his presidency isn’t a threat to capitalism.
3. If Bernie Sanders isn’t electable, his presidency isn’t a threat to capitalism.
4. Therefore, a Bernie Sanders presidency isn’t a threat to capitalism.

Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »