M. Arthur Zinault writes:

"A Society By the Rich, For the Rich

The Double Standards of Discussing Class in America"

by Brian Oliver Sheppard

(bsheppard@bari.iww.org)

In the USA of 2001, the notion of "class" is still suppressed in popular discourse. Speaking about any class aside from the almighty American "middle class" is generally frowned upon. To discuss the lower class, the upper class, or -- God forbid -- the working and ruling classes, is to invite accusation, scorn and derision. To even admit that such distinct classes exist might be seen as mind-blowingly radical. You are speaking from a disproven Marxist standpoint, you will be told (no matter whether you are really Marxist or not; anarchists are well-acquainted with being lumped in with "Marxists" by ignorant reporters and others). There are no real class divisions in America because here you are pretty much what you make of yourself. Or so we are told.

This being the case, it is interesting to catch the wealthy discussing class in terms that might make the most doctrinaire of Marxists look flaccid. A June 1 Associated Press article captures such a moment. The article (by AP writer by Chuck Bartles) reports Walmart's partnering with AOL Time Warner to begin offering Internet service to people of modest means. As if the new company, Wal-Mart Connect, were not enough to cause concern, Bartles quotes a business analyst remarking on the new joint venture:

"As the price of PCs are dropping and penetration is reaching the lower economic classes, we will see Internet penetration in that demographic region. Wal-Mart’s strategy might make sense. But the question is, is this the customer they really want? At the end of the day, you have to make a profit. This may be a test."

The statement comes from Rob LaBlatt of the Gartner Group, an industry trend-watcher that sells its consulting services to large corporations. LaBlatt's point is that poor people are increasingly getting computers, and that due to this they will probably want Internet access. But since they are still poor, LaBlatt asks, does it really make sense to try to sell this to them? He believes that it doesn't. And from the standpoint of the business community, he is right. Poor people make lousy customers since, by definition, they have little purchasing power. It makes good business sense not to provide services for them, but to instead cater to a wealthier clientele.

LaBlatt is a business consultant, hired by corporations to help them generate profit. If an advocate for the poor had said exactly what LaBlatt said, however, s/he would be called a Marxist and would be chastised for "preaching class war" and making people think that we are not all part of one gigantic middle class - one big happy family with a common interest. S/he would be reprimanded for implying that we live in a society with clashing class interests. But LaBlatt is being honest: is a poorer person the customer that Walmart or others really want?

Now what if LaBlatt had asked, "Are African-Americans the type of customer that Walmart really wants?" Or "Are gays the type of customer Walmart really wants?" People would take notice. But because class is mentioned instead, and because many of us have internalized a belief that it is acceptable to discuss the poor in such ways (since they must be poor solely by their own doing) it merits little outrage. And it means we are silently complicit in a society that devalues people based on their wealth and class position, and excludes them from enjoying services and goods others have "earned." (This opens up a whole host of possible ideas linking class and race and how the two intersect, but such a discussion is outside the scope of this piece.)

This simply underscores the point that "preaching class war" is okay and acceptable in the media when the class war being preached is waged against the poor. Poor people, working people, activists and the like who talk to reporters about "the lower economic classes" are not usually quoted in mainstream journals, but are instead written off as misguided, or "emotional," socialist thinkers whose ideas are not credible. Business analysts and business leaders themselves, on the other hand, are accorded every degree of seriousness when discussing issues of class or the preservation of the capitalist system.

It all comes down to this: the wealthy may discuss and analyze issues of class for their own purposes. Those who are being discussed -- the "lower economic classes" mentioned by LaBlatt -- may not do the same thing.

PRESERVING "DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM"

In 1999, President Bill Clinton proposed investing Social Security dollars into the stock market to garner larger rewards for future retirees. While most corporations drool at the prospect of being able to get government money, the Clinton idea had a fatal flaw: it might encourage workers and the rest of the public to use their investment as an excuse to get the government to influence corporate behavior. The Business Roundtable, one of the largest coalitions of corporate CEOs in the world, drafted a letter to Clinton warning against his plan:

"We understand that you are considering a proposal under which the federal government would directly invest Social Security trust fund dollars in the stock market. Such direct investment runs contrary to the fundamental principles of democratic capitalism, and would result in undue concentration of assets in certain market segments, share price distortion, and market inefficiencies. Government ownership of private companies raises significant corporate governance concerns and creates the potential for political investing."

These CEOs unashamedly state what they support: the preservation of “democratic” capitalism. In fact, they are saying a proposed law should be shot down simply because it violates capitalist principles. If a poor person were to ever claim a law was being decided upon based on whether or not it supported capitalism (and thus the ruling class), however, they might sneeringly be called a "Marxist" or worse.

The "principles of democratic capitalism" dictate, in the CEOs' view, that the public not be able to democratically influence capitalism or its corporations. Rather, corporations should be autocratically controlled by the wealthy men inside them. That is why corporations support Social Security reform that lets individuals invest as individuals and not as a huge bloc that might be able to shape policy.

Of course, it’s doubtful that the same president who repealed Glass-Steagall would have wanted to nationalize industry. And undoubtedly the CEOs knew this. But even the merest spectre of public control over their corporations alarmed this powerful special interest group to the extent that they lobbied against it. And Clinton's proposal was indeed never realized.

Again, it's interesting to wonder how a grass roots activist, a labor rights advocate, or anyone else, would be regarded by elites if they spoke in such vulgar Marxist language as to mention "the principles of Western capitalism" or any other such fine-sounding ideological term to make their point.

FEDS FEAR "MILITANT LABOR"

On August 19, 1997, Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee minutes recorded that “members commented that the outcome of the recent labor negotiations involving a very large package delivery firm might well be a harbinger of more militant labor negotiating attitudes. "The “very large package delivery firm" was UPS, and the minutes refer to the national 1997 UPS strike that got much attention at the time. The Open Market Committee is the policy-setting board of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Why would the government care about "militant labor ... attitudes"? The Oct. 7, 1997, Associated Press article quoting these statements reports that elites were worried the "strike might signal a more militant work force." Pat Cleary, head of human resource policy with the National Association of Manufacturers -- a big business lobbying group like the Business Roundtable -- said, "There's no question that, from the employers' side, the recent signs of increased [worker] stridency are worrisome. The message is clearly increasingly confrontational."

Increased militancy by the peons means trouble for elites; it means control might be wrested from managers and redistributed in a more egalitarian fashion. This, too, runs counter to "the principles of democratic capitalism" that the Business Roundtable and others wish to see upheld.

The fact that the committee in the government that sets monetary policy might be worried about "militant labor" reveals their own class bias. Do they ever remark about "militant CEOs" or "militant corporations" who are "increasingly confrontational"? Of course not -- the idea is laughable because we all know, and subtly accept, that such government committees work not in the interests of the working class, but of wealth. There is no such thing as a "militant corporation" in their logic.

So, while it is okay for elites to discuss class rule, express fear of uppity workers who want a bigger share of the pie, and the like, it is not okay for workers to be similarly class conscious, to speak in terms of class, or to discuss class rule. Class consciousness must only exist for the wealthy, the powerful, the privileged, who must use their class consciousness -- their awareness of the truth -- to engineer society in such a way that works to benefit themselves. The majority of people must simply accept this and not think anything remarkable of it. Their continual stupor only ensures they accept whatever lot in life they are dealt.

Someone who does think that class domination is remarkable -- or is unacceptable -- can expect swift marginalization and exclusion from mainstream discourse. Red-baiting and other intellectually shallow means of discrediting are sure to follow. But wealthy social managers, who think in class-based terms and who are conscious of their own interests and how they clash with yours, will not be called fringe thinkers, radicals, or any of these things. They are simply pragmatic realists, doing what they must do to keep their businesses -- and the "democratic capitalist system" -- alive.

--

Brian Oliver Sheppard is the author of Exploitation and How it Affects You(Barricade Books: Melbourne, Australia, 2000). He is an anarchist writer & labor activist who writes regularly for the Industrial Worker. His work has appeared in Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, Onward!, Kontrapunkt, San Francisco Bay View, Black Business Journal, and many others. He can be reached at bsheppard@bari.iww.org or at (972) 993-2020 x1943."