I think a more salient point is that these DSA representatives (regardless of their economic status), don’t have any real support from the actual workers.
for instance, you can’t say you want to uplift the working class while also supporting open borders, elimination of ICE and amnesty/citizenship for all illegals.
those two ideas are polar opposites and if implemented, would be fatal to the actual working class.
perhaps a better heuristic would be: does the policies of said DSA member help or hurt the workers they claim to represent and why do working class people reject socialism?
it’s true one doesn’t have to be poor to want to help poor people. you do, however, have to support policies that have real benefits for the poor.
I seem to remember a time when Cesar Chavez all the way to Bernie Sanders in 2016 were against the right wing push to streamline illegal immigration to bring down wages and expand profits for the donor class.
unfortunately, the problem of class consciousness has always been a major problem for the socialists. the workers of the world aren’t as dumb as the rich kids think they are…
Sorry but no. You can't criticize the predatory capitalsitic system we live in by simultaneously enjoying the perks of that oppressive economic model through accumulation of wealth. In a world with finite resources someone is getting poor in the moment you fill your pockets and you can't be okay with that in the same breath that you declare yourself a socialist. That is why DSA and socialist leaders in general should lead by example and until then I can't take them seriously
The left doesn't fetishize the working class. This article wouldn't make any sense if they did, given that the entire crux of your argument hinges on how the right is doing the "yet you live in a society, I am very smart" meme in perpetuity.
The bad faith right wing reaction, which all right wing reactions are, is not born of the left's fetishization of the working class, it's born of a bad faith and purposeful misunderstanding of leftist economic critique.
You spend the entire article complaining about how Fox News covers wealthy socialists, and then ascribe that treatment to the left at the very last second, as though their imagined fetishization legitimizes Fox's coverage in the mind of their viewership. The reality is that Fox and their viewers are okay with being disingenuously wrong on purpose, because issue bases do not matter to right wingers, and especially not to Fox News.
The reality is that what you call fetishization is simply focus. Why is the left focused on the working class and blue collar labor? Because those are the folks most negatively affected by the current economic system. Same reason the right obsesses over capitalists and billionaires with the inverse affectation.
What change in messaging should the left adopt relative to the working class? Should they say they're fine? That they're not suffering disproportionately under wage stagnation, inflation, and privatization? I don't understand why you think that bad faith coverage on the right is the result of leftist messaging, as though Fox News would never call Chuck Schumer and Hasan Piker Marxist commies in the same breath.
The Capitalist is using the system to amass personal fortune, and helps the poor in ways such as providing jobs and careers, developing technology, or just creating things to improve everyday life, and is evil.
The Progressive is using the system to amass personal fortune, and helps the poor in ways such as IG memes, TikTok reels, podcasts and other outrage internet content, and is a hero.
Ben Burgis summed this up in a tweet a while back: "Perhaps one day social scientists and economic researchers will discover the precise income level at which you're allowed to criticize capitalism without being either a resentful loser or a hypocritical champagne socialist, but thus far it's a mystery."
My issue isn't that you have rich kids advocating for the poor, that can be noble (if the polices they advocate for actually help).
The issue is why do they larp as working class?
To your point Roosevelt never let on he was anything he wasn't (except a philanderer and able bodied) and did more for the poor then anyone but perhaps LBJ.
Why wear the working class skinsuit if you have no claim to?
You can claim its politics and I get code switching as a skill but it does undermine them.
You can advocate for the poor just don't speak as you were one. Makes you a phoney.
I agree but I would add that there is a difference between a wealthy person who has left ideals but is not personally experiencing suffering because they can afford not too and a poor person who is in pain and sees their family in pain everyday. The wealthy lefty can easily just go along with the Democratic party in the name of pragmatism because the result is more wealth and no pain (for them).
The essential work on this subject is from Joan Williams. In the aftermath of Trump's first election in 2016 she published an article in the HBR attempting to explore the misconceptions that white collar workers have with regard to the working class, a piece that she later expanded into book form.
Most importantly, what most professionals fail to understand about the working class is that they are _middle class_, not the working poor. Their concerns are middle class concerns--that is why arguments about the minimum wage and health insurance are meaningless to them. The minimum wage, for example, just isn't relevant. Nobody in a middle class household is working a minimum wage job unless it's a teenage child manning the drive in at McDonald's. Similarly, they already have health insurance.
If any party wants to direct its policy positions towards the poor they need to be cognizant that a) that population is pretty small and b) they don't vote very much.
I think a more salient point is that these DSA representatives (regardless of their economic status), don’t have any real support from the actual workers.
for instance, you can’t say you want to uplift the working class while also supporting open borders, elimination of ICE and amnesty/citizenship for all illegals.
those two ideas are polar opposites and if implemented, would be fatal to the actual working class.
perhaps a better heuristic would be: does the policies of said DSA member help or hurt the workers they claim to represent and why do working class people reject socialism?
it’s true one doesn’t have to be poor to want to help poor people. you do, however, have to support policies that have real benefits for the poor.
I seem to remember a time when Cesar Chavez all the way to Bernie Sanders in 2016 were against the right wing push to streamline illegal immigration to bring down wages and expand profits for the donor class.
unfortunately, the problem of class consciousness has always been a major problem for the socialists. the workers of the world aren’t as dumb as the rich kids think they are…
Sorry but no. You can't criticize the predatory capitalsitic system we live in by simultaneously enjoying the perks of that oppressive economic model through accumulation of wealth. In a world with finite resources someone is getting poor in the moment you fill your pockets and you can't be okay with that in the same breath that you declare yourself a socialist. That is why DSA and socialist leaders in general should lead by example and until then I can't take them seriously
The left doesn't fetishize the working class. This article wouldn't make any sense if they did, given that the entire crux of your argument hinges on how the right is doing the "yet you live in a society, I am very smart" meme in perpetuity.
The bad faith right wing reaction, which all right wing reactions are, is not born of the left's fetishization of the working class, it's born of a bad faith and purposeful misunderstanding of leftist economic critique.
You spend the entire article complaining about how Fox News covers wealthy socialists, and then ascribe that treatment to the left at the very last second, as though their imagined fetishization legitimizes Fox's coverage in the mind of their viewership. The reality is that Fox and their viewers are okay with being disingenuously wrong on purpose, because issue bases do not matter to right wingers, and especially not to Fox News.
The reality is that what you call fetishization is simply focus. Why is the left focused on the working class and blue collar labor? Because those are the folks most negatively affected by the current economic system. Same reason the right obsesses over capitalists and billionaires with the inverse affectation.
What change in messaging should the left adopt relative to the working class? Should they say they're fine? That they're not suffering disproportionately under wage stagnation, inflation, and privatization? I don't understand why you think that bad faith coverage on the right is the result of leftist messaging, as though Fox News would never call Chuck Schumer and Hasan Piker Marxist commies in the same breath.
This is funny. In this scenario…
The Capitalist is using the system to amass personal fortune, and helps the poor in ways such as providing jobs and careers, developing technology, or just creating things to improve everyday life, and is evil.
The Progressive is using the system to amass personal fortune, and helps the poor in ways such as IG memes, TikTok reels, podcasts and other outrage internet content, and is a hero.
I don't care who you are. This is not a debate. Show respect for the dead, your elders and your neighbours.
Great piece. Thank you.
Ben Burgis summed this up in a tweet a while back: "Perhaps one day social scientists and economic researchers will discover the precise income level at which you're allowed to criticize capitalism without being either a resentful loser or a hypocritical champagne socialist, but thus far it's a mystery."
My issue isn't that you have rich kids advocating for the poor, that can be noble (if the polices they advocate for actually help).
The issue is why do they larp as working class?
To your point Roosevelt never let on he was anything he wasn't (except a philanderer and able bodied) and did more for the poor then anyone but perhaps LBJ.
Why wear the working class skinsuit if you have no claim to?
You can claim its politics and I get code switching as a skill but it does undermine them.
You can advocate for the poor just don't speak as you were one. Makes you a phoney.
keeping a dollar for yourself instead of using it to help the poor is a choice. And that is who you are.
I agree but I would add that there is a difference between a wealthy person who has left ideals but is not personally experiencing suffering because they can afford not too and a poor person who is in pain and sees their family in pain everyday. The wealthy lefty can easily just go along with the Democratic party in the name of pragmatism because the result is more wealth and no pain (for them).
The essential work on this subject is from Joan Williams. In the aftermath of Trump's first election in 2016 she published an article in the HBR attempting to explore the misconceptions that white collar workers have with regard to the working class, a piece that she later expanded into book form.
Most importantly, what most professionals fail to understand about the working class is that they are _middle class_, not the working poor. Their concerns are middle class concerns--that is why arguments about the minimum wage and health insurance are meaningless to them. The minimum wage, for example, just isn't relevant. Nobody in a middle class household is working a minimum wage job unless it's a teenage child manning the drive in at McDonald's. Similarly, they already have health insurance.
If any party wants to direct its policy positions towards the poor they need to be cognizant that a) that population is pretty small and b) they don't vote very much.
Who would they vote for?
Poor people don't vote. As to why, I suspect it's because they understand that it doesn't matter which party is in charge.
How would you address poverty?
Poverty in and of itself in the US is not too bad compared to somebody living in a dump in the Philippines and scavenging trash.
The issue I would focus on is crime, which is overrepresented in poor areas and depresses economic activity.
100 percent