Check out my latest essay in Cosmonaut Magazine: Earlier this week Patrick Wyman, podcaster and historian, put up an article describing the American gentry in their historical context, their political and economic power, and their support for Trump. This gentry, in the modern American context, is defined by its ownership of both land and hard fixed assets which allow it to extract rents and run small to medium-sized businesses. Largely hereditary, reactionary, and sources of institutional power in many regions, Wyman’s intent appears to raise alarm bells about the danger of this class to the largely progressive readership who are more used to pointing the finger at big business monopolies like Amazon or Facebook. There was a quick retort from the unapologetic reactionaries, however, written by
I enjoyed this article, and thought it was very thought-provoking. I have two questions, though if you only respond to one, I'm more curious about the first.
My first question is about what workers siding with big capitalists over the gentry, the sort of exurban/small city bourgeoisie, actually looks like. I came into Marxism and thoughts about politically and economically building socialism via being engaged with community organizing. Saying "side with Amazon" is a tough sell. What, in vague terms, would that look like, policy-wise or programmatically?
My second question surrounds your saying that Marx's immiseration thesis has been disproven. Doesn't it hold on an international scale? Looking just at US workers, it may not completely hold, but when looking at working-class (or, class-less, "toiling peoples") as an international group, would it not be accurate to say that immiseration has continued if not increased, via imperialism and colonialism, the first of which you do mention? Furthermore, I'd argue that there are many non-economic, humanistic factors which would attest to immiseration even in the imperial core. For example, the poverty of our social, mental, and cultural lives. This humanistic element /is/ recognized by Marx, as he distinguishes his materialism from Feuerbach. But I recognize that this perspective is not one that you often argue from.
I enjoyed this article, and thought it was very thought-provoking. I have two questions, though if you only respond to one, I'm more curious about the first.
My first question is about what workers siding with big capitalists over the gentry, the sort of exurban/small city bourgeoisie, actually looks like. I came into Marxism and thoughts about politically and economically building socialism via being engaged with community organizing. Saying "side with Amazon" is a tough sell. What, in vague terms, would that look like, policy-wise or programmatically?
My second question surrounds your saying that Marx's immiseration thesis has been disproven. Doesn't it hold on an international scale? Looking just at US workers, it may not completely hold, but when looking at working-class (or, class-less, "toiling peoples") as an international group, would it not be accurate to say that immiseration has continued if not increased, via imperialism and colonialism, the first of which you do mention? Furthermore, I'd argue that there are many non-economic, humanistic factors which would attest to immiseration even in the imperial core. For example, the poverty of our social, mental, and cultural lives. This humanistic element /is/ recognized by Marx, as he distinguishes his materialism from Feuerbach. But I recognize that this perspective is not one that you often argue from.