He isn't. He's basically saying that the way American society has developed up to this point the only people who become conscious of structural, systemic injustice are those who have gone through higher education. The college-educated are those who have received the necessary context along with the critical thinking skills to analyze things further.
It's additionally building off earlier theses on the post-WWII development of American infrastructure - ie suburbanization and deindustrialization - and the evolution/realignment of the political parties, in that these developments have suppressed the further development of class-consciousness in America and decimated the industrial proletariat. Basically that the American working class has been fragmented, atomized, and alienated from each other and all politics now revolves around culture- and identity-based single issues. So for a lot of working-class Americans, their outlooks are extremely reactionary, they're handicapped in developing a class-consciousness and workplace comradery, and their political concerns largely revolve around immediate gains or what they interpret to be "left to their own devices". In this way the extreme-right "libertarian" ideology of the Republican Party is increasingly gaining traction among working people, or as Matt frames it, the non-college-educated. In this desolate political environment the anti-intellectual, anti-elitist, anti-cosmopolitan, grievance-based identity politics of the Republican Party is more appealing to the non-college-educated than the intellectually vain, smug elitist, cosmopolitan but fragmentary identity politics of the Democratic Party, which caters more to the college-educated who are much more conscious of their own privilege.
Obviously this is an oversimplification, because both parties as representative of bourgeois class interests mean they represent different factions of the college-educated. Obviously, there are plenty of college-educated rich bourgeoisie and well-off petty bourgeoisie among the ranks of the Republicans. But in broad strokes, at least in my experience, Matt's thesis that the Republicans appeal far more to the non-college-educated than the Democrats is correct. Pretty much every working-class person I know is consumed either by conspiratorial thinking/religious mysticism, knee-jerk hostility to government (due to their interactions with government being solely negative), or both.
That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I know firsthand that Marxist ideas are so powerful precisely because they appeal to the lived experience of working people.
I'm saying that for the vast majority of American working people, defeatism and/or apathy are the order of the day when it comes to politics. They see no material gains for themselves by participating in bourgeois politics, and as a result retreat into pop cultural consumption and social media like opiates.
American economic and social infrastructure has been deliberately constructed to destroy the ability for workers to organize and achieve class-consciousness. It is a very deliberate fomentation of reactionary political impulses. This is essentially what Matt's thesis is. Because all "legitimate" American politics have retreated entirely from the economic into the realm of the purely cultural, the reactionary brand of the Republicans has more appeal to the non-college-educated. And in my experience that's correct - the biggest obstacle to the Republicans becoming a legitimate working-class party is their all-but-explicit white supremacy.
I think it is probably bad to broad strokes the "working class" based on education level.
I was responding to this bit you dropped:
Pretty much every working-class person I know is consumed either by conspiratorial thinking/religious mysticism, knee-jerk hostility to government (due to their interactions with government being solely negative), or both.
Which comes across as pretty out of touch and unhelpful.
Otherwise, both democrats and republicans are incredibly reactionary. I'm not sure I see the point here.
I definitely don't think democrats are even kind of aware of their white privilege outside of knowing what the terminology is. They just elected Joe Biden for Christ's sake lol
Is there a benefit to creating another dividing line between college educated and non when talking leftist politics?
He isn't. He's basically saying that the way American society has developed up to this point the only people who become conscious of structural, systemic injustice are those who have gone through higher education. The college-educated are those who have received the necessary context along with the critical thinking skills to analyze things further.
It's additionally building off earlier theses on the post-WWII development of American infrastructure - ie suburbanization and deindustrialization - and the evolution/realignment of the political parties, in that these developments have suppressed the further development of class-consciousness in America and decimated the industrial proletariat. Basically that the American working class has been fragmented, atomized, and alienated from each other and all politics now revolves around culture- and identity-based single issues. So for a lot of working-class Americans, their outlooks are extremely reactionary, they're handicapped in developing a class-consciousness and workplace comradery, and their political concerns largely revolve around immediate gains or what they interpret to be "left to their own devices". In this way the extreme-right "libertarian" ideology of the Republican Party is increasingly gaining traction among working people, or as Matt frames it, the non-college-educated. In this desolate political environment the anti-intellectual, anti-elitist, anti-cosmopolitan, grievance-based identity politics of the Republican Party is more appealing to the non-college-educated than the intellectually vain, smug elitist, cosmopolitan but fragmentary identity politics of the Democratic Party, which caters more to the college-educated who are much more conscious of their own privilege.
Obviously this is an oversimplification, because both parties as representative of bourgeois class interests mean they represent different factions of the college-educated. Obviously, there are plenty of college-educated rich bourgeoisie and well-off petty bourgeoisie among the ranks of the Republicans. But in broad strokes, at least in my experience, Matt's thesis that the Republicans appeal far more to the non-college-educated than the Democrats is correct. Pretty much every working-class person I know is consumed either by conspiratorial thinking/religious mysticism, knee-jerk hostility to government (due to their interactions with government being solely negative), or both.
Yeah all us people that didn't get no book learning in college actually love to taste the boot-heel of capitalism.
Fuck off. This is classism and you should feel bad for agreeing with it
That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I know firsthand that Marxist ideas are so powerful precisely because they appeal to the lived experience of working people.
I'm saying that for the vast majority of American working people, defeatism and/or apathy are the order of the day when it comes to politics. They see no material gains for themselves by participating in bourgeois politics, and as a result retreat into pop cultural consumption and social media like opiates.
American economic and social infrastructure has been deliberately constructed to destroy the ability for workers to organize and achieve class-consciousness. It is a very deliberate fomentation of reactionary political impulses. This is essentially what Matt's thesis is. Because all "legitimate" American politics have retreated entirely from the economic into the realm of the purely cultural, the reactionary brand of the Republicans has more appeal to the non-college-educated. And in my experience that's correct - the biggest obstacle to the Republicans becoming a legitimate working-class party is their all-but-explicit white supremacy.
I think it is probably bad to broad strokes the "working class" based on education level.
I was responding to this bit you dropped:
Which comes across as pretty out of touch and unhelpful.
Otherwise, both democrats and republicans are incredibly reactionary. I'm not sure I see the point here.
I definitely don't think democrats are even kind of aware of their white privilege outside of knowing what the terminology is. They just elected Joe Biden for Christ's sake lol
Is there a benefit to creating another dividing line between college educated and non when talking leftist politics?
This is where you're missing the point. This isn't discussing "leftist politics" it's discussing American politics, as it actually exists.
Fair enough then. American politics are definitely classist.
Still we shouldn't be looking at this under the idea that all non-college educated working class are stuck in backwards ideas.
Like I don't see the benefit of even platforming that kind of assumption.