Political Classes?

The reading I’m doing at the moment is from the 1930’s. Theologically, philosophically and politically rich they also give a remarkable historical insight into that period. It was a period of struggle and change and the rise of three differing forms of totalitarianism – i.e. Marxism, Fascism and National Socialism. In order to talk about these political ideologies and the political and social history of 18th and 19^th century Europe there developed key terms for describing man. There was therefore the bourgeois liberalist of Capitalism, and the proletariat of Marxism. I’m trying to figure out who the bourgeois liberalist is today and who the proletariat are?

Is Rorty’s liberal ironist today’s equivalent of the bourgeois liberalist? And what of the proletariat – is this a political class that effectively died when the Berlin wall fell in 1989, and if so what has filled this vacuum? Does, in the West at least, the hegemony of the globalized market and the ongoing individualisation of identity mean that there is no longer a politically disadvantaged socio-economic class who can congeal and bring their mass to weigh upon the dominate political system?

Is the conflict between radical Islam and ‘Western Capitalism” the ideological and political conflict that will define our age? Is this then a clash between American style liberal democracy and religious conservatism – and if so how do we describe China and India and the growing influence they will have on the world stage?

Also if anyone out there in cyber-space is an expert on, or knows an expert on Jacques Maritain and his political philosphy then it would be great to chat.

Comments

[chris]

Hi Brodie...

Good to even hear people using those terms again- speaking as one who lived for such things at one time.

I think you are right about the 30s being a hotbed for all kinds of wonderful ideological thought. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though- the wars in spain, followed by WW2, and the post war cold war in Europe, and hotter versions in Africa and South America inevitably put a different spin on radical thought.

But still, I have a nostalgia for a time when all things were simple, and life could be subdivided into politicaly un/acceptable.

Ideology died. I think it was before 1989 in Britain. You could say 1979, when Thatcher came to power and took on the unions. I was in berlin in 1989, and ideology was dead then too- at least in terms of its validity to most of the population, either side of the wall.

I have thought a lot of about class divisions in modern Britain. Of course, they are still there- we still have a block of old wealth and land owners who have massive assets, and we still have the disenfranchised and poor. Blairites stopped talking about poverty, and instead used that awful phrase 'social exclusion', almost as if the whole thing is about being polite! I think we see a dominant cultural influence on our social structures that comes from the USA, were personal acheivement is talked up, but there remains this huge underclass of often Black folk, who not only have few aspirations, but even fewer opportunities.

Was is Engels, looking at Britain in the '30's who talked about 'Embourgeoisement' (spelling of this rusty- it has been 20 odd years since I thought much about this!) We used to suggest that this was the Thatcher governments greatest weapon- we can all aspire to own our own (council) house, and run a tidy second hand car...

What has replaced the old ideolology?

I think the 'spirit of the age' question remains to be answered- if we believe the post modernists, then the next dominant ideology (or competing set of the same) is yet to come...

The relevance of America is interesting. We have MacDonalds and Starbucks, but the liberal/conservative political language of America seems to have no relevance in Europe- at least not in the way these concepts are understood over there? Is America a superpower with no 'big idea' outside capitalism?

I wonder then, if the engine of the conflict between America and Islam is not ultimately about power, and land, not about religion.

Which kind of brings us back to Marx.

Blessings

Chris

[brodie]

Chris - thanks for your thoughts and questions. Will think about these before saying any more.