Would Marx have imagined this?

By -
Faced with the prospect of revolt from the proletariat, the liberal state created a new class: the permanent underclass.

Whereas proletarian man was connected to society only as a factor of production, underclass man is not even a factor of production. If proletarian man is like an ox, underclass man is like a rat or pigeon: living a separate existence on the fringes of human society, collecting whatever scraps and refuse come his way.

But he serves a purpose: he is the canary in the coal mine for the worker. “Not happy working 40 hours a week in a repetitive, stressful factory job for a barely adequate wage? You better keep showing up for work, or you could wind up in that housing project you drive past in the morning, with your kids getting beat up on the way to school every week.”

UPDATE: And of course, Marx saw that liberal reforms would serve to prop-up liberal society, not to genuinely reform it.

Comments

  1. Andy10:50 AM

    Everyone wants to punch down. Have you checked out "Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row America" by Arnade?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geno10:35 PM

      I don't know it. Thanks for the suggestion.

      Delete
    2. Geno10:48 PM

      Just ordered it!

      Delete
  2. BZ10:25 PM

    Why is this piece titled Would Marx have imagined this? He seems to have imagined what you are describing in your article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geno10:36 PM

      Well, he certainly thought that liberal reforms would just serve to prop up the liberal state. But I don't know if he saw this specific outcome... that's why it is a question!
      Do you have a reference as to where he did foresee this?

      Delete
  3. BZ12:13 AM

    Oops. It appears I conflated Marx with later marxist writers. You are right that Marx himself never explicitly stated what you've said in this post.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more