Hello. And welcome to this, the first installment of my blog, “At the Barricades.” If you’ve touched base with my homepage, the reason for the title will be clear.

As one who’s more comfortable with academic writing – guided, as it is, by a safe roadmap of citations and research – the freedom that comes with a blog is a little unnerving, much like getting a gift of a new power saw and wondering, “whatever will I make?” Formal uncertainties aside, it should be clear from my homepage that the substance of my writing will, nevertheless, deal with labor, the status of working people domestically and globally, and the challenges it faces from an entrenched owner class. For the last thirty or so years, economic elites have enjoyed a nearly unchallenged dominance over a labor force cowed into submission by forces we will examine, and a labor movement weakened by an anti-labor rightwing which has, admittedly, been very successful in contorting political discourse in its favor, and bending (purchasing , rather) influence in the halls of government. How it has managed to do that, we will examine as well in this and future posts.

So, what about labor? The fundamental characteristic of labor in the decades since the mid-‘70s is its timidity, its weakness, and its failure to exert itself in its own interest as an impactful force not just in U.S. culture, but globally as well. The old IWW adage “workers of the world unite” is just a hollow echo from the last century. It is no accident that labor’s dwindling fortunes track almost in lockstep with the decline of union membership since its nadir in the late 60s. The following chart from a paper by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) illustrates this waning influence nicely:

As one can see, the downward slope is precipitous, but no more precipitous than the slope upwards from 1929 to the mid-‘60s when workers risked life and limb to physically challenge the economic powers arrayed against them. Through strikes, walkouts, boycotts, and agitation in the halls of government, the labor movement slowly built itself into what John Kenneth Galbraith referred to as a “countervailing power” – a necessary check on vertically integrated corporate entities quite unlike the atomistic, tiny businesses of Adam Smith’ day which, through genuine competition on a micro level, effectively checked each other. Only power can check power, and the greatest power of labor is a labor movement acting in solidarity. In an economic milieu where private sector unions presently represent roughly only 7 percent of the workforce, the prospect of countervailing anything is a joke, and the rightwing is laughing. Reflecting on the Marx quote in the header, this enfeeblement has had very real consequences for workers and their ability to demand their equitable share of the social product. One has only to look at this chart to see the  persistent crushing effect on working class incomes. Again, from EPI:

One sees, a la the Marx quote in the header, that workers’ spoons are indeed small; miniscule in fact. So, the question is: Where has the American worker gone? Why do they not band together as in times past and demand a larger share of the economic pie, a pie that would not exist, as Marx would agree, without their efforts?

The reasons are complex, suggesting social, economic, and political forces quite unlike (and much more sophisticated) than the clear lines of combat that characterized labor’s struggles against Carnegie’s Pinkerton goons and Henry Ford’s gangster enforcers under Harry Bennet in the 1930s.  Simply put, the clear exploitation that took place on the shop floors and mines from the 1800s to the late 1930s existed against a simpler societal backdrop where allegiance to capital or labor was obvious, where political rivalries were clear-cut, and, most importantly, the predominant vehicle for discourse and information were newspapers and disembodied voices on the radio speaking in short segments at the behest of soap and tobacco companies. Infant radio at this time represented the first blush of electronic media. In this nascent state, it paled in effectiveness and power to, first, television, then internet and social media which have come to be the primary tools of rightwing bloviators and agents of capital.

To their credit, the conservative talking heads and rightwing think tanks have been very successful in nurturing an audience anxious to vote against its own interests (hello Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, et al). They have demonized left-leaning politicians and activists who, in fact, have working peoples’ interests at heart  are reminiscent collectively of Patty Hearst and her ill-fated captivity by the SLA in 1973. By embracing the philosophy of her captives, she has historically come to be the poster child of Stockholm Syndrome. Likewise, through brilliant use of electronic and digital media, conservatives have created a body of loyal political zombies who, instead of walking on picket lines and sitting around tables bargaining for a contract are instead cheering an orange demagogue at MAGA rallies, buying pillows advertised by millionaire presenters on Fox News, and calling, literally, for the expulsion and even death of leftwing politicians anxious only to help them. This whole state of affairs is a vindication of Marshal McLuhan and his groundbreaking, prophetic, and generally misunderstood 1964 work, “Understanding Media.” Its insight into the relationship between media and human understanding is worthy of further inquiry. Something I’d like to cover in future posts. In the same vein, I am reminded too of Paddy Chaefsky’s 1976 movie :”Network,” foretelling the usurping of the editorial department by the advertising department.

Money and politics have never been strange bedfellows. As far back as Tea Pot Dome and before, money has polluted government with its influence. However, it has, for most part, displayed an element of discretion, hiding itself in smoke filled rooms away from the prying eyes of the public. No more. One crowning achievement of the right is, of course, the conservative majority in the Supreme Court who, in 2010, bid the moneychangers come into the light and buy their politicians in the light of day. What had been a secretive business was now a business-in -itself, with politicians (and their votes) going to the highest bidder. Money is speech, ruled the court, and was now the currency of government. The government – which should be a marketplace of ideas – has become instead a literal marketplace, with politicians proffering themselves to the purveyors of capital for the monetary life’s blood of their campaigns in exchange for votes on the floor of Congress. Now commoditized, the U.S. electoral system has become an auction, and like any auction, the legislative outcomes have gone more and more to the highest bidder. Sold, consequently, into near extinction have been the hard-won protections provided by labor law, in particular, the Wagner Act, the 1935 New Deal legislation that codified and secured labor’s right to organize and bargain. In coming installments, we’ll examine the right’s war on labor and the weakening of legislation protecting it.

Finally, workers’ indifference, fear, and outright complicity has come at a price. For forty or so years, it has sacrificed its economic well-being to feed an economic engine that has pumped an obscene amount of wealth to the upper one percent. To illustrate, I leave you with this chart and urge you, like Marx, to grab a bigger spoon.