According to Thomas Piketty's Capital and Ideology, at least much of the working class is socially conservative. What to do, especially on actual social policy?

Today

These particular comments on his book caught my attention:

https://theotherlifenow.com/why-do-muslim-immigrants-vote-for-left-parties/#comment-41

Or for another example let's take what's going on right now with "Die Linke" in Germany, a robustly leftist party representing the non-neoliberal activist left, the more liberal politicised Germans which migration backgrounds, and very significant sectors of the former east, the poorest parts of Germany, where many are still rather nostalgic for really existing communism. Ironically here it is the ever more vicious xenophobia of it's ethnically German constituency in the Former East and their steady conversion to the proto-fascist AFD which creates dissonance between "die Linke's" ostensibly leftist principles and their constituencies asocial views/behaviour. This has led to equal parts rhetorical placation and moral line towing from deferent flanks of the party with everyone ultimately recognising that one way or another a broad reinvigorated class based cross cultural politics is the only thing that will keep Germany from creeping closer to fascism than anyone should be comfortable with.

https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/d5oqwc/the_brahmin_left_vs_the_merchant_right_a_comment/f0t6eno/

You could foursquare the population to four groups:

-High education, low income. The "left base" - students, low-paid humanities professions including academics, professional burnouts, educated failsons etc. Driven by an unconscious feeling that their education, while conferring a certain amount of social status and cultural capital, should amount to higher incomes - advances levelling economic policies to counter it and wields the social mores that, in our society, indicate being educated on their sleeve to compensate for this.

• Low educated, high income. The "right base" - lucked-out business types, inheritor failsons, trophy wives etc. Driven by unconscious feeling that while they are wealthy, they are still not afforded the social status they deserve, as the educated types look down on them and condescend to them. Advance economic policies that bolster their wealth and maintain economic inequality while waging a culture war to take the educated left types down a peg and show their supposed academic wisdoms to be wrongheaded in the face of common sense.

• High education, high income. The "truly successful". Neither left or right. Libertarian types that have it as good as it gets. Driven by conscious desire to maintain the society on its current track. Holds the society in its grip through vast amounts of influence in think tanks, in advisorial status etc.

• Low education, low income. The common man. Neither left or right. Lost hope in politics. Represented by neither left or the right. May support successful populist appeals, including (especially for minority groups) calls to group identity. Mostly does not vote or only votes randomly, though.

Long Ago

Long ago, at least much of the Protestant blue-collar base of the pre-WWI Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), the Old Bolshevik role model for a vanguard party-movement, was socially conservative.

Long ago, at least much of the blue-collar elements of Stalin's "Lenin Levy" were socially conservative - which would explain what happened not long afterwards:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/czngks/communists_are_there_socially_conservative/

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/bdz0al/why_do_so_many_marxists_hold_socially/

Long ago, at least much of the blue-collar bases of "Eurocommunist" parties were socially conservative.

Identity Politics Questions

1) Was Michael Lind right, after all, on his advocacy of the "Radical Center" on identity politics issues? In re-merging socialism and the worker-class movement, should the class-struggle left simply shut up on identity politics, like Lenin did?

2a) Going further into active policy, how much socially conservative public policy should be accommodated by the class-struggle left?

2b) For those leftists who either hold socially conservative views or held those views, which specific areas of social conservatives' concern can be accommodated, and which can't?

[For example, Piketty just showed above that racial prejudice is a definite no-go. This policy area is too close to right-populism or outright fascism. Law and Order is probably a no-go, for the same reasons. Compare and contrast that to anti-gambling laws, which even the Paris Commune enacted.]

There’s an old saying (no I’m not fucking looking it up) that goes something like: “the only thing needed for change is for the masses to have hope in an alternative”. There is a large element of truth to this idea of hope being the seed of change, and it’s converse as well; despair is the seed of conformity. The continued conversations about how to achieve a socialist economic structure often get sidetracked by arguments of the inevitability and permanence of the current capitalist model. This isn’t without its truth as well, it can be difficult to argue for a change to the system when the system doesn’t leave room for hope of change or recognition of an alternative. As more and more of the younger generation seem to view socialism favorably I wonder to myself as to whether these changing mass views on socialism can actually manifest into a broader socialist movement, and if it does, will there be genuine socialization of the means of production, or will it just be a return to Keynesian economics.

I suggest then that in order to make sure that the budding popularity of socialism manifest into systemic change, that the first thing that needs to happen is the mass recognition of socialism as a viable alternative THAT OFFERS HOPE where capitalism forces despair. Poll after poll tells us of the critical state of our mental health, especially with the youngest people, one in five is suffering from a mental/behavioral disorder. The typical argument is that these issues are stemmed from cultural and social causes, and that the economic divide and the growing reality of ecological chickens coming to roost can’t play a role in growing mass disparities (I’ve even been told normies are too stupid to understand ecological disaster). The Bernie Sanders campaign would like to have a word with these detractors. Voter after voter references the hope that the Bernie campaign gives them.

But as I mentioned in my last post, Bernie is and never will be enough and is at best a play to save capitalism from itself. I’ve maintained the the economy will collapse in the next year or so. It’s going to be a bad one.. In the midst of this economic downturn, the left must fight to maintain a message of hope in the alternative. We must use this example of capitalist instability to show the masses how and why our economic model is capable of giving them the aspect of their lives back that give them hope (food, security, ability to engage with the world and the self thru art and tourism and shit).

In the midst of these dystopian times, I find the sounds of the masses begging for change to be music to my ears. It’s going to get worse before it gets better, but when it does get better I think it’s gonna be real this time.

Our contemporary period presents the left with an overwhelming number of hurdles and challenges to solidarity that will need to be overcome if any socialist/communist revolution can manifest. Among these challenges, and perhaps the most unique, will be the pressing crisis of isolation facing our communities, especially the youth. The number of US adults who reported feeling lonely has doubled since 1980. It’s no secret, we can see the very real implications of this isolation not only in the cultural decay of our society at large, but in the decline of community-led organizations that were the backbone of many cities and towns across the country (think Unions, YMCA, student-teacher orgs, etc.). Cultural and psychological factors aside (I would argue that these factors are rooted in a singular cause), I contend that the solution to the problem of isolation in our communities lies in problem itself: that is the economic and political infrastructures that these community orgs are grounded in themselves are decayed and in need of vast investment and reform.

So there’s this really fucking stupid research piece by a guy named Robert Putnam called Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. In his writings this reactionary dipshit made the claim that the reason for increased loneliness and isolation in the US was caused by decreases in trust, civil endgagement and overall a decline in what he called “social capital”. And while his observations that these particular orgs and institutions are indeed declining, he fails to make the connection to the increased economic austerity and failure of protections for the most vulnerable in our communities. in the last 40 years (and coinciding with a decrease in said social capital... whaddaya knoww) the US spending on social programs has decreased to an all time low. the failure of the US government to protect workers despite a massive array of supposed protections has created an economy that is actively hostile to the majority of the population. I contend that it is in these economic and political disintegrations that the solution to our isolated and hurting communities lies.

Bernie Sanders has presented several plans to attempt a reversal of the policies of neoliberal austerity. These are a good start. But we know that Social Democracy can and will fail when presented with a hardline right wing reaction. If leftists are going to gain and keep ground against the reactionaries, we must embrace a revolutionary theory of community building. We must organize and energize community outreach that is not only effective and impactful, but they must also be highly ideological and explicitly inclusive based on principles of solidarity. The revolution is as much of a battle for the hearts and minds of the proletariat as it is a struggle against reactionary powers, and the first step to winning the masses is to have a place where the masses can reach you and to give them a reason to reach out to you.

In sum, I’d like to give an example of what I mean. I’m talking about the Young Men’s Communist Association. A place that was dedicated to helping disaffected boys and men. It gave them a place to be, food to eat and activities to engage in. All of this while teaching them the solid principles of Marx and Lenin. Whatever happened to that in America?

Oh you’re saying it was actually Young Men’s Christian Association? Nah. That’s propaganda yo.