Zcom_simple

9

Rustbelt Rage



Source: ITT

Change Text Size a- | A+


 

On Feb. 18, Joe Stack, a 53-year-old computer engineer, crashed his small plane into a building in Austin, Texas, hitting an IRS office, committing suicide, killing one other person and injuring others.

 

Stack left an anti-government manifesto explaining his actions. The story begins when he was a teenager living on a pittance in Harrisburg, Pa., near the heart of what was once a great industrial center.

 

His neighbor, in her ’80s and surviving on cat food, was the “widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement.

 

“Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was Social Security to live on.”

 

He could have added that the super-rich and their political allies continue to try to take away Social Security, too.

 

Stack decided that he couldn’t trust big business and would strike out on his own, only to discover that he also couldn’t trust a government that cared nothing about people like him but only about the rich and privileged; or a legal system in which “there are two `interpretations’ for every law, one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us.”

 

The government leaves us with “the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies (that) are murdering tens of thousands of people a year,” with care rationed largely by wealth, not need.

 

Stack traces these ills to a social order in which “a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities—and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours.”

 

Stack’s manifesto ends with two evocative sentences: “The communist creed: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: from each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”

 

Poignant studies of the U.S. rustbelt reveal comparable outrage among individuals who have been cast aside as state-corporate programs close plants and destroy families and communities.

 

An acute sense of betrayal comes readily to people who believed they had fulfilled their duty to society in a moral compact with business and government, only to discover they had been only instruments of profit and power.

 

Striking similarities exist in China, the world’s second largest economy, investigated by UCLA scholar Ching Kwan Lee.

 

Lee has compared working-class outrage and desperation in the discarded industrial sectors of the U.S. and in what she calls China’s rustbelt—the state socialist industrial center in the Northeast, now abandoned for state capitalist development of the southeast sunbelt.

 

In both regions Lee found massive labor protests, but different in character. In the rustbelt, workers express the same sense of betrayal as their U.S. counterparts—in their case, the betrayal of the Maoist principles of solidarity and dedication to development of the society that they thought had been a moral compact, only to discover that whatever it was, it is now bitter fraud.

 

Around the country, scores of millions of workers dropped from work units “are plagued by a profound sense of insecurity,” arousing “rage and desperation,” Lee writes.

 

Lee’s work and studies of the U.S. rustbelt make clear that we should not underestimate the depth of moral indignation that lies behind the furious, often self-destructive bitterness about government and business power.

 

In the U.S., the Tea Party movement—and even more so the broader circles it reaches—reflect the spirit of disenchantment. The Tea Party’s anti-tax extremism is not as immediately suicidal as Joe Stack’s protest, but it is suicidal nonetheless.

 

California today is a dramatic illustration. The world’s greatest public system of higher education is being dismantled.

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he’ll have to eliminate state health and welfare programs unless the federal government forks over some $7 billion. Other governors are joining in.

 

Meanwhile a newly powerful states’ rights movement is demanding that the federal government not intrude into our affairs—a nice illustration of what Orwell called “doublethink”: the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in mind while believing both of them, practically a motto for our times.

 

California’s plight results in large part from anti-tax fanaticism. It’s much the same elsewhere, even in affluent suburbs.

 

Encouraging anti-tax sentiment has long been a staple of business propaganda. People must be indoctrinated to hate and fear the government, for good reasons: Of the existing power systems, the government is the one that in principle, and sometimes in fact, answers to the public and can constrain the depredations of private power.

 

However, anti-government propaganda must be nuanced. Business of course favors a powerful state that works for multinationals and financial institutions—and even bails them out when they destroy the economy.

 

But in a brilliant exercise in doublethink, people are led to hate and fear the deficit. That way, business’s cohorts in Washington may agree to cut benefits and entitlements like Social Security (but not bailouts).

 

At the same time, people should not oppose what is largely creating the deficit—the growing military budget and the hopelessly inefficient privatized healthcare system.

 

It is easy to ridicule how Joe Stack and others like him articulate their concerns, but it’s far more appropriate to understand what lies behind their perceptions and actions at a time when people with real grievances are being mobilized in ways that pose no slight danger to themselves and to others.

 

067

Its important not to exagerate the importance of the Tea Party

By Green, Chris at May 12, 2010 08:39 AM

Another thing is that it is important that we not exagerate the roots of the Tea Party among the American population. This article from politico.com, called to my attention in a post by Doug Henwood on his  "LBO News" blog about a month ago, make this point. It points out that anti-war and pro-immigrant rallies have had been attended in much higher numbers than most tea party rallies but the media has focused lazer like on the Tea Partiers. The article points out that according to a Pew poll, 31 percent of Americans have never heard of the Tea Party and 30 percent have no opinion of them. 24 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the Tea Party, according to the poll. Obviously that is way too high an approval rating and the rating might grow higher as time goes on. The level of irrationality expressed by these people is really alarming but lets not give them more significance than they deserve.

Politico.com article:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36185_Page4.html

Pew poll results:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1703

Reply this comment


067

The left dosen't have much to offer most Tea Partiers

By Green, Chris at May 12, 2010 08:03 AM

Chomsky seems to assume that the Teabaggers are working class people victimized by deindustrialization and corporate globalization but recent studies have shown that the people involved in this movement are privilleged to a large extent. Paul Street and Anthony Dimaggio discussed this in a recent article and it has also been discussed by Doug Henwood. The Tea Party people are to a significant extent college educated and make at least $50,000 per year if not much higher. They are some of the more well paid middle class and upper middle class workers. And a disproportionate share of the Tea Party movement seem to be petit bourgeois, lots of small businessmen and similar people, the traditional constituents in this country of right wing movements. They don't seem upset by stagnating wages or whatever but they think that Obama is going to steal their hard earned tax dollars and give it to lazy black and brown people. Chomsky has said that the left should be organizing tea party people but to a large extent, the tea partiers seem to be among the least likely in the population to be receptive to a left message.

Joe Stack dosen't seem very typical of the Tea Partiers. Most of them don't seem to  think that  corporate power is oppressive . They probably believe, because Rush Limbaugh says so, that the financial crises was caused by the government forcing the banks to lend mortgages to people of color who couldn't pay them back and that such coercion compelled the poor banks to create derivatives and other such complex instruments to try to make the lending to poor minorities profitable.

It may be true that there is a larger attraction among the white working class to right wing ideas than is manifested merely in the Tea Party. I remember this video that circulated late last year that featured interviews of people waiting to get into a Sarah Palin book signing at a bookstore somewhere in Ohio.  The video was produced by a liberal group and it asked the Sarah Palin fans outside this bookstore questions relating to their endorsement of Palin. Most of the fans seemed working class.  None of the people featured could articulate why they liked Palin beyond banal slogans: "She's for smaller government," "She wants to lower taxes," etc.  When the interviewer pressed for more specific answers as to why  they liked Palin, he usually drew blanks. For example, a woman responded that she thought that Palin had a good policy on health care and when asked what specifically she liked about Palin's health care policy, the woman said she really didn't know.  Alot of liberals snickered over this video though I doubt interviews with a similar group of Obama supporters would yield much more than banal slogans either. But at least one man at this book signing, a working class looking person, said something interesting and that was to the effect he supported Palin because he wanted the US to be great again and we've been a declining country and other countries don't respect us. There was obvious jingoism in his statement but also a sense that he felt that things were getting worse in the country, and possibly for himself personally, and thought that Palin could reverse the decline.

New York Times article on study showing that Tea Partiers are wealthier and better educated than the general American population: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

Reply this comment


Person

By Rochat, Gui at May 11, 2010 13:26 PM

One should not underestimate the hubris of the establishment, which will bring it to its knees. It was a phenomenon seen in France and Russia and like with the Wizard of Oz will be exposed for what it is, a threatening power with weak underpinnings, namely the popular consent that Chomsky has written about. The cracks in the capitalist neo-liberal system are clearly visible in Greece (and soon in Spain), the first signs of the crumbling at the edges of empire as described by Borges.

Reply this comment

Loading_border