Thursday, December 15, 2005

A Truncheon is a Tool with a Worker at Either End

Wally Conger and Brad Spangler, among others, have written intelligently about “Libertarian Class Theory”. I am not well acquainted with the literature and libertarianism from an intellectual standpoint, so all I can seem to offer is a lame admonition about reification of the concept of class. And now I am having serious second thoughts about the “dangers” of reification. Certainly, I expect scholars to remember that their concepts are not “real”, but I have come to believe that the most important function of libertarian class analysis is in raising “class consciousness” among non-intellectuals. It is actually desirable for people to reify concepts of class that facilitate the acceptance and enactment of libertarianism.

It is, in substantial measure, false consciousness about class in America that permits working men and women to align themselves with their overlords and exploiters and against their own interests. I have heard folks claim, with straight faces, that we live in a “classless society”. Other folks self identify as “middle class” and include just about everyone in that class except welfare queens and the Hilton sisters. Any time anyone points out income and wealth disparities, the cry of “class warfare” is enough in some quarters to end discussion.

Using income as the basis for class divisions seems problematic to me. Income is a continuum, and there is no necessary qualitative difference between a household earning a given amount and another household earning a dollar more or even thousands of dollars more. All wage earners seem to have a great deal in common despite differences in income. The differences between a Hummer driving McMansion dweller and an El Camino driving trailer denizen are somewhat superficial. On a deeper level, the commonalities override the apparent differences. Neither is likely to have much net worth or savings. Both are dependent on their paychecks and would likely find being out of work for 3 months disastrous. Neither has much influence in the world or control over his own time. Both are just slogging through the days trying to get by, except that one has a bigger TV. In any event, dividing folks up by income doesn't do much to inspire libertarian leanings.

Some other dimensions must be found. The idea of the productive class versus the political class is intriguing, but it can be misused. A case in point follows.

I recall a conversation with the Idiot Brother-In-Law (everybody has one, it seems, or is one) in which he announced that there were two classes in America: “taxpayers” and “tax eaters”. I was briefly intrigued until he explained further. In his way of thinking, this meant that he was more akin to business tycoons (“productive people”) than to his working poor neighbor who received food stamps (“parasite”). (The irony was that he worked in a phoney-baloney county job at the time and had his lips firmly affixed to the government teat). It never occurred to IBIL that the tycoons he classed himself with were themselves recipients of far more government largesse than all the welfare beneficiaries who ever lived. All the subsidies, government contracts, protections against competition, etc. that the tycoons enjoy were invisible to him, but he was keenly aware of his unfortunate neighbors’ pittance in assistance. IBIL is a working class slob who votes with the tycoons and the tyrants and the bosses. He despises other working class people.

IBIL is not alone. Even some libertarians I have spoken to seem to buy into a too simplistic taxpayer/tax eater dichotomy. They lump public schoolteachers and municipal garbage men in with well-heeled military contractors in the “parasite” class. The hogs at Halliburton are feasting on the slops of war, but all they see is that some municipal workers are putting in too much overtime or that the teachers' union is pushing for a pay increase. Is this really a helpful way of looking at things? I think not. The tendency will be for folks to focus in on their fellow workers or the assisted poor, because these are salient to them. They encounter them every day. Because our overlords work behind the scenes and run in different circles, folks don't know what they are up to and won't be able to identify their real class enemy.

On an intuitive level, I find that I recognize three classes: the dirt poor underclass, wage earners of any income level and any color collar, and our mysterious overlords. I suspect that the key is to identify and demonize the overlords. I don't really know who they are.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

>>>>On an intuitive level, I find that I recognize three classes: the dirt poor underclass, wage earners of any income level and any color collar, and our mysterious overlords. I suspect that the key is to identify and demonize the overlords. I don't really know who they are.<<<<

Without an understanding of how people are controlled libertarianism is nothing but hot air and mindless blithering.

Most modern Libertarianism is under the control of the socialist overlords, like most of the rest of the intellectual world. This has occurred because most people don't understand that the socialist overlords only believe in socialism for the masses. The overlords retain their own private property, which now includes the subjects of all socialist countries, which is just about all that I can think of.

Libertarianism must be grounded in the idea that respect for the private property of the poor is more important than it is for the rich. Libertarianism is the idea that a man's home was his king's castle, like jolly olde England.

It just so happens that a society that respects private property as an ideal provides great benefits to the poor. Small amounts of property are more vulnerable to plunder by rogues and governments due to the limited ability to afford defenses. Those with larger amounts of amassed property can afford private countermeasures in proportion to the size of their stash.

An ideology that encourages the formation of governments that limit the amount of onerous taxation and focus attention on suppressing rogue attacks on individuals and their property is an ideology that helps the poor in an effective and highly productive manner. Rather than subsidizing sloth and irresponsibility as welfare state socialism invariably does, protection of person and property rewards those who work to produce wealth, whether they be poor or rich. The deal leaves the poor with much more than they had before, especially the psychic benefits from being freemen and freewomen.

Remember, Plank #1 of Marx's Communist Manifesto is the abolition of private property, i.e. for everyone but the overlords instituting the Manifesto.

Anyone who desires to find out what libertarianism was meant to be should begin with the bloggings of America's founders, especially the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Then move on to "Socialism" by von Mises and "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. Avoid anything by Rothbard or Rand unless you want to get sidetracked and misled.

And I double-dare any plastic banana pseudo-libertarian to argue with the rejection of Rothbard and Rand. They both stink on dry ice as bad as Chomsky himself.

<><

Vache Folle said...

Thanks, James, for your thoughtful comment.