I was watching Cradle Will Rock last night. Although I thoroughly enjoyed it, that is not exactly what I intend to discuss today. I was thinking about many of the topics of the film and how they relate to contemporary issues. Some issues are historical and not directly relevant. Other issues are associative. But then I started thinking about the period itself. The movie takes place in the 1930′s. More specifically, I was thinking about how Lukács describes history and class consciousness in his work titled History and Class Consciousness.
It seems to me that, as a society, we ignore issues that are uncomfortable, or even contradictory, to the way we wish to view society today. Even more specifically, I’m talking about the House Un-American Activities Committee, Fascism in Europe and the build-up to WWII. It would be easy to describe the selective amnesia over specific parts in this area of history as reactionary. But I think it really lies deeper than that.
Sure, there is a nostalgia of the past. Every society suffers from some type of reactionary nostalgia. When looking at the history of China, you see this occur at the end of each dynastic cycle. When the empire begins to degrade, everyone recalls the “good ole days” of the “Mighty Empire.” And there is definitely something to be stated about the all-too-human existential crisis of chasing the past.
What I feel is troubling is the way in which our selective memory of the past is shaped by those in power. It appears, to me, that there is something to be said for the way the power structure shapes our recall of past events.
In my mind, I wonder what it would be like to go to Detroit, or Cleveland, or Flint, or West Virginia, or Kentucky, or Texas, and discuss with the laborers there how they feel about Unions. To ask them if they realize that in the 1930′s, Unions were viewed as a part of the “Communist Threat,” and how police were used by the Robber Barons of the time to keep labor ‘in order.’ (I say in my mind, because I do not have the resources to do this presently.) It’s not that I believe these people are very different from me. Indeed, I’m sure many of them would understand and even have stories from the period, either from themselves or from their relatives. But I also do not think it would be a majority, as we view that many people in these regions appear to be pro-Union and anti-”Liberal.” Any places with large amounts of Industrial labor tend to be GOP strongholds. (I just want to be clear that I am not trying to be divisive or condescend, just that I do see strong GOP/Tea Party support in the working-class, industrial populations.)
Once upon a time, the “Left” was the party of the poor. It seems a bit twisted now. The media and society portrays the American-Left as Ivy League snobs: “The Educated Elite” or the “Liberal Elite.“ And the GOP is the party of the “Working Class.” These are unofficial party lines.
We are reminded, on occasion, that the Republicans were the “Party of Lincoln,“ the “man who freed the slaves.” And that the Democrats were the pro-slavery, pro-south, pro-every evil thing in the American past. This is, indeed, all too true, but we never want to discuss how there was a dramatic shift in party lines and ideology.
Like I pointed out to the shift of the use of “Progressive” in contemporary discourse. Progressives were pro-prohibition. How can “Progressives” also be the pro-cannabis ideology? On the same hand, how can the pro-regulation ideology also be supportive of ‘big business’ and ‘corporate greed’ ?
In the 20th Century CE, the anti-Communist movement in the United States had particularly high fervor. We all know at least a little about this. We hear about Senator McCarthy and his “hearings” on “Communist activity.” But we rarely discuss the root cause of all of this, outside of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia or the Civil War in China.
The reality of the anti-Communist sentiment is that it was born out of the Industrial Revolution in the previous centuries. Volumes have been written on the impact of the Industrial Revolution(s), and I do not contend to be able to succinctly summarize them in one entry. But, the advent of mechanized production lead to incredible growth in industry as well as growth in education and standards of living. The down-side to this growth was the growth of labor and the exploitation of this labor. As production increased, so did motives for profit growth. With this growth increased the need for unskilled labor. The incentives to exploit labor were tremendous. The exploitation was horrendous. Working 18+ hours a day in sweatshops with little to no regard for safety for very low wages was common in this era. If an employee refused to accept these conditions, they were replaced. It became an environment where most laborers had no other options.
It is very odd the way the pendulum swings. The Socialist, Communist and Anarchist movements that grew out of these conditions were just as tremendous. They swept through Europe into Russia. Civil unrest continued to grow as laborers grew uneasy with the situation. And just as these movements grew as a backlash to Industrial greed, they spawned counter-reactions across the globe. As the Bolsheviks took over Russia, Hitler and Mussolini seized the opportunity for power as “anti-Communist” protection. Although the United States did not see the fascist takeover that Europe saw as a response, the House Un-American Activities Commitee did grow in force.
In the 1930′s, prior to the War, much popular sentiment leaned towards Mussolini and Hitler, as they stood opposed to Communism. (They probably would have supported Sun Yet-Sen if they had properly understood the situation, as well.) Just as well, in the United States, the International Workers of the World (IWW) and other Union organizations were seen as a “threat” to the nation. They subverted the power of the wealthy. Any talk of “strikes” or “protests” or penalizing greed were condemned as “Communist.”
The reason for this scattered history lesson is simply that I feel we selectively recall this era. Just as Country, Rock, Blues, Jazz, Rockabilly, and most other American forms of music were deemed “Negro music” at their conception but are regarded as simply “American” today, many of the methodology of the “Communists” and “Socialists” of the past are ignored.
On Saturday, we saw Glenn Beck organize a rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the rest of the Tea Party Movement claim to be a “grassroots movement.” They talk about how they are tired of the Elite, although they claim to support a moderately “classless” society. In reality, they organize much like groups did under the IWW, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and the Green Party. They espouse similar themes towards the “elite” as to Michael Parenti and Hannah Arendt, while claiming they are devout Ayn Rand zealots.
Life is much simpler when there are only two sides to every issue. It is plain reality that there are many sides to many issues. Unions protect laborers from exploitation. The means they use to achieve that end can be varied. The Tea Party Movement is constantly debasing the “Liberals” and “Progressives” as the “Liberal Elite,” claiming they are out of touch with the middle class and working class. The Democratic side is busy trying to paint Conservatives as racist corporate henchmen. And we are ignoring how much the current situation resembles the past, and how these issues were born out of the past.
I would not be surprised if many of the people who attend Tea Party rallies were Union members, or some type of Artisans that were members of Trade Unions. Just like the Democrats choose to ignore the fact their party used to chant ditties like “N*gger Doodle Dandy” and, even, “All De Way Wif LBJ!” complete with pregnant a pregnant pickaninny. The New Right chooses to ignore how the people who won the right for them to have these Unions were slandered as Communists and “un-American.” Union organizers were treated much worse than supporters of Universal Healthcare are treated today.
Selectively, we seem to have forgotten that Catholics, Germans, Italians, and Irish were not “White.” (More specifically, not WASPs.) We choose to ignore how long racism and antisemitism have flourished in the United States. We choose to ignore that it was not long ago that females were not allowed to vote. In our not-too-distant past, there were no labor laws, no child labor laws, no protection for non-Protestants, and no universal suffrage. Indeed, there is even talk of “going back” to the way things “used to be.” Does that mean revoking suffrage or allowing Unionized labor? Back to Robber Barons and servitude?
What does this all mean? I really do not know. One point I intended to convey is that it may be easier to believe that there are hard-lines that separate ideologies. It may be easier to believe that it is “us against them,” but is that really the issue? And, are these really all the issues we are concerned about today? Or are they vestiges of a cultural leftover? Could it be that half of our disagreements lie in propaganda of a by-gone era? Do we selectively choose to ignore history, or are we taught to ignore specific aspects as to not upset the balance of power?
You really are in inconsiderate douchebag.