Re: Nick Cohen on Thomas Frank

[andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Charles' reference to Lenin's idea that there is a
labor aristocracy" that is bought off with the
superprofits of imperialism doesn't fit the "Kansas"
case very well, and specifically doesn'y explain why
people act against their own economic interests. The
labor aristocracy in the theory acts in its own
immediate economic interest. But Franks' Kansas "cons"
are not the best paid workers, who by, the way, are
unionized (taking workers to include ordinary blue
collar workers, white collar professionals excluding
the absurdly overpaid like me, and pink collar
clerics). Rather the people he is interested in are
not-terribly affluent folks, who may participate in a
share of superprofits vis a vis Haiti or Malaysia, but
who would, one one think, be natural supporters of a
party that appealed to working class economic
interests. If we had one. But they don't -- their hot
buttons are abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools,
evolution, feminism, and the like. The question is --
why's that? I don't think "class collaboration" on
grounds of economic interest is a good explanation.
jks



--- Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> *       From: Carl Remick
>
>   I would welcome
> hearing a Marxist explanation
> for the great mystery that Frank identifies -- that
> Kansans (and US'ers in
> general) seem to be driven by phony-baloney social
> issues to the virtual
> exclusion of being concerned about economic reality.
>  How *can* sheer
> fantasy trump material fact that way?
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: There is this "old" Marxist idea about
> bourgeoisification of a certain
> critical mass or layer of the working class in the
> richest imperial centers
> with some of the super-profits, with consequent
> opportunism and class
> collaboration.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail