I don't quite buy this argument, but there is something to be said for doing a class-based analysis of the present moment. I think he has the classes wrong. His opening statement is to the effect that it's a war between factions of the elite, in which the working class is powerless.
It might strike some as odd: The new president of the United States won the election by rallying the working class against the establishment swamp, yet he has placed at the helm of his assault on the elite-controlled Deep State none other than the richest man in the world. But this is only a paradox if you grant a couple of assumptions that the above description presupposes: that the “working class” is actually represented at all in our political system, and that anyone but the “elite” is involved in the power struggles within it. Understanding what’s really happening in the second Trump administration requires disabusing ourselves of both of these notions. What we’re seeing is the latest battle in a long war between two factions of the American elite. The working class are just extras on the set—moral props in a struggle that has nothing to do with them.
It's definitely true that neither Trump nor Musk are nor ever have been 'working class.' However, they are both outliers from their economic class, and in any case individuals and not classes. The story the author wants to tell is about an elite that is divided into two factions by whether they possess more cultural or more economic capital.
Generally speaking, members of the elite are relatively affluent in both economic and cultural capital. But the composition of one’s portfolio matters. Within the ruling class, Bourdieu regards those who are far richer in cultural capital than economic capital as structurally subordinate—in his words, “the dominated fractions of the dominant class.” Those with the inverse mix—who are rich in money but don’t necessarily boast the most illustrious educational credentials—are the dominant fraction of the dominant class.
So the story is that Trump represents the dominant fraction of the dominant class, as does Musk; and they are striving to further subordinate the faction that is defined by its cultural capital, e.g. education and cultural knowledge. These are the two classes, the rich wanting more freedom from regulation, and the educated wanting comfortable government jobs programs.
The problem for me is Weber's insight that the bureaucracy constitutes its own class with its own class interests that diverge from the rest of the citizenry -- even from the 'class' they were drawn from. And it has its own power, too: far from being subordinate, that Administrative class functionally deposed the last President and governed without him exactly as they wished. They ran the police, they ran the military, they ran the government from stem to stern. Even though the government includes many 'working class' men -- soldiers and police officers usually are, for example -- they were led by a class whose interests did not align with theirs, or indeed with any other citizens'.
It's true that we are finding out that USAID and other mechanisms established something like a 'jobs program' that itself pursued political ends from outside the government. Wealthy networked NGOs and activist groups molded politics in the precise interests of the Administrative class. Because it paid their comfortable salaries, the Administrative class aligned that part of 'those far richer in cultural capital than economic capital' with itself. There is no doubt, however, that the Administrative class was dominant: it set their agenda in its own interest. DOGE is effectively severing that tie, which may in time lead to those two factions drifting apart.
Meanwhile, the rich part of that class seems often to align itself with the Administrative class, just because they end up subject to its powers. Facebook was all about joining in on unconstitutional Administrative efforts towards backdoor censorship, as was Twitter until Musk bought it. All the big corporations were lining up in favor of Wokeness until Bud Light crossed -- well, it crossed the working class. That was really the first blow, Bud Light's loss of its majestic stature and wealth brought about by working people refusing to drink the stuff any more. They too are why Trump got elected in numbers to big to 'fortify.'
So I don't think this analysis is quite right, but I do think it's a useful exercise to examine what classes there are and try to sort out how they are trying to influence the game. The working class has not proven powerless, and the elite isn't quite divided up the way the author thinks. It is worth thinking about, though.
3 comments:
The 19th C British cultural competition between those with even minor gentry titles and those "in trade" seems an early version of this. The former had prestigious but less-practical training in Latin, Greek, Ancient History while those in trade had technical skills and grew in power. This turned into CP Snow's Two Cultures, and he allowed that the social sciences (with fair overlap with bureaucratic and managerial classes) eventually became a 3rd culture.
In America, the working class still gets something whether by the power of association, or the veto power of the pocketbook.
Good article, BTW.
The Weber insight link needs the "Chrome extension" prefix up to the "http...." beginning of the actual URL eliminated for the link to work.
It's easily enough done in the browser's URL address field.
Regarding the OP, it's worth noting, too, that while the economically wealthy "class," or at least its apparent nominal leaders of that group--Trump and Musk--seems not only to be reducing the credentially wealthy class in government and its influence from without, they're doing that as a side effect of their work against the structure that the credentially wealthy have created in the Federal government and not as a goal.
It seems to me that their real target is that structure--hence their moves to so drastically reduce not only the spending power of that structure through naming and shaming the wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive spending programs, but especially the size of that structure: all those generous severance offers, all those eliminations of positions altogether, all those outright firings, and especially in that last, the firings of the heads of various of the substructures.
Eric Hines
It's an interesting article and a discussion of classes in America can be worthwhile. So, good for Woodhouse for bringing it up and giving us a starting point.
However, I don't think he's right that the working class have no power or representatives. They did play a significant role in electing Trump and so created this opportunity, but it is only an opportunity. Once a politician is elected, the voters have no control until the next election; voters are, however, an essential component of the system.
The problem in the past has been that no matter who the people elected, the politicians either outright identified with the PMC / bureaucracy or were at least unwilling to buck the bureaucracy, so even when those opposed to the PMC elected the president and a majority of Congress, their will wasn't carried out. The PMC always won, regardless of D or R in power, hence claims that a "Uniparty" really ran things.
The voters have once again voted for change and this time seem to have found people willing to buck the PMC and give them change. Without the voters choosing Trump, there would be no change, so they are necessary but not sufficient for change.
Additionally, Woodhouse misses a key difference in Trump. As he portrays the venture-capitalist class, it's goal is to maximize the free market, which (though he doesn't say this) has up to now included an open-borders attitude. It's good for business, so they support it, a rising tide lifts all boats and whatnot. However, open borders are disastrous for the working class (as they were, and Marx noted, in Marx's England). So, Trump is going against the venture-capitalist class in that, and he is representing the working class in that way.
Trump is representing a vertical cross-section of American classes, including the working, middle class and venture-capitalist classes. Each of them will have to give up some things for the coalition to hold together, but they all have a stake in not letting the PMC run an unaccountable oligarchy over them. I think it's unlikely the coalition will hold together long, but if they can break and put a leash on the PMC, maybe we can move on to fight over other things and do so in an honest, republican way.
Post a Comment