On Violence and Class Warfare

“Class warfare.”  Lately, it is breaking out everywhere.  The phrase, that is.  Over the last 10 days commentators, pundits, comedians, and, finally, Democratic politicians have gotten into the game.  Elizabeth Warren, the new wonder woman Democratic Senatorial candidate in Massachusetts went viral with her plain-spoken rebuke of the Republicans’ use of the term “class warfare.”  In an amateur video made by one of her volunteers she explained how factory owners benefit from the roads and the schools that the rest of us pay for:  “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.”

And just last Wednesday, in a move that seemed inspired by the popularity of Warren’s Youtube video, Obama gave an inspiring speech in front of a bridge to somewhere — the home districts of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell:  “There’s a lot of people saying, ‘this is class warfare.’ Well, if saying that billionaires should pay the same share in taxes as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what? I’m a warrior for the middle class.”  Obama has been urged by dozens of columnists, including Sally Kohn of the Washington Post and Chris Weigant of Huffington Post to take the language of class warfare seriously, and to fight hard on the side of the not-rich.

Why? Because there is a war going on, and the working- and middle-classes are losing.  Last week America’s most widely read economist, Paul Krugman, gave us four reasons why “class warfare” is top down, rather than bottom up.  You can see a great visual distillation of Krugman’s point with this cartoon from Clay Bennet.

It turns out that this kind of class warfare—the kind that comes from the top down — is pretty bad for the economy. You can read from the IMF report that shows the negative economic effects of the wealth gap, or take a gander at new September CIA rankings for income inequality.  The survey is based on the “Lorenz curve,” in which “cumulative family income is plotted against the number of families arranged from the poorest to the richest.”  It ranks the US as 39th worst out of 136 counties surveyed.  The people of Yemen, Pakistan, Poland, Egypt, and Vietnam, just to name a few, suffer less disparity between the rich and the poor than we do.

In the Wealth of Nations, the economist Adam Smith weighed in on the problem of the rich accumulating too much profit.  He railed against the “merchants and masters” who complained about high wages, but not their own high profits:  “Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.”

In the meantime I find the invocation of the term “class warfare” completely fascinating, in part, because, as columnist Robert Mentzer argues, the term “class warfare” actually gets us talking about class.  On the other hand, when the term is used, it is usually referencing some change in wealth distribution, and not actual warfare—nothing akin to real battles, pitch-forks, or heads on a pike.  When was the last time that the working class was organized enough to do any real bodily harm to the capitalist class?

The last time the term “class warfare” was used often and sincerely to refer to a violent revolution by workers was during the Gilded Age in the US and Britain.  The best example comes from the the son-in-law of Karl Marx, Edward Aveling, in a published lectured titled “The Curse of Capital”:

You will ask:  ‘Will you not have a frightful struggle and will it not end in bloodshed?’  Possibly.  I do not know.  ‘Is it not setting class against class?’  Yes;  and Socialists mean to devote their lives to setting class against class.  We preach class warfare.  We hope it may not be a warfare of bullets and steel, but if it is class warfare even this, alas! is possible.  It is a warfare of the labour class against the capitalist class.

 That was some real class warfare being proposed by an English radical at the height of the trade union movement in Britian, in 1884.  But good luck finding similar moments in American history.

Here, most working-class radicals have stayed away from violence.  One of America’s most violent working-class incidents, the Haymarket Affair, took place in the midst of a massive (and, we should remember, successful) national movement for the eight-hour work-day.  After two workers were killed at a protest outside the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company in May of 1886, Chicago anarchists called for a rally to protest the deaths of the slain workers in Chicago’s Haymarket square.  During the rally, which had been calm and peaceful up to that point, someone threw a pipe bomb at a police line.  Police and some of the protesters opened fire, killing crowd members as well as other officers.  Eight anarchists were tried, found guilty, and hung.

Just before he was hung, the anarchist August Spies shouted, “The time will come when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you strangle today.” The Haymarket Affair was one of those moments in which class warfare became truly violent, and from the top-down as well.  Reading the last words of the Chicago anarchists, who were likely falsely accused, poorly tried, and tragically executed, I am led to reflect upon the execution of Troy Davis last week.  After he was killed, my friend Robert Perkinson, who is a prison scholar and the author of Texas Tough, posted a photograph in his facebook feed from the 1930s of a banner hanging out of a window in New York City that read:  A MAN WAS LYNCHED YESTERDAY.

While he was not actively engaged in class warfare, Troy Davis is a casualty in the war on the working class.  His execution is just one more terrible reminder that when class warfare becomes violent, that violence tends to flow from the top down.  As Cynthia Tucker wrote in Grio last week,  “If Troy Davis had been a high school principal or a funeral home director or the proprietor of a soul food restaurant, he probably wouldn’t have landed in the middle of an investigation into a police officer’s murder. Had he been a member of Savannah’s black middle-class, he likely would have been treated with a bit more deference by the criminal justice system.”

For many of us who believe that the death penalty is wrong, and that Davis’s execution was particularly wrong, it has been a sobering week.  We can take some comfort from the fact that the national discourse has turned powerfully and seriously towards class.

As for class warfare, most of us who are fighting with, for, and in the working class are not about to issue—or answer—a call to arms.  But if it is a war of words that is in the offing we have a lot to say.  We will not be silent.

Kathy M. Newman

This entry was posted in Class and the Media, Contributors, Issues, Kathy M. Newman, Working-class politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to On Violence and Class Warfare

  1. Davianne Kirk says:

    I really agreed with the statement “the term “class warfare” actually gets us talking about class” The term is so controversial and provokes awareness. When politicians use terms such as this it really gets the public curious and thinking. Great method on their part to bring attention to their cause.


  2. Yinzerella says:

    Kathy–glad to know you’re still fighting the good fight at CMU. You were one of my fave professors.


  3. kitchenmudge says:

    Nice essay. I’m always wondering what it will take to get people to act by the millions, as they have in Tunisia, Egypt, etc. When does the corruption become so obvious that the troops won’t fire on the crowd?


  4. Pingback: Have Coffee Will Write » Blog Archive » TIME TO GO ON THE OFFENSE IN THE CLASS WAR…

  5. They only call it class warfare when we fight back as they say. US working class history is a rich,militant history. We have fought back against the most brutal capitalist class in history. The author reminds us of the Haymarket massacre but the ruling class of this country were the masters of massacre starting with the Indians; there was the Everett, Ludlow and many more massacres. I think it was Engels that explained the crass brutality of the US capitalist class being due to the fact that they never had to defend their ideas against a ruling class. The British capitalist class fought a lengthy ideological battle against the feudal aristocracy, for their US counterparts it was simply a matter of wiping out a couple of million natives and building some infrastructure.
    We had a strike where I worked in 1985 and I was on the negotiating team and a local elected official. A striker threw paint thinner in a scab’s face on the line and the bosses pulled in the wrong guy. I recall meeting the lawyer, our lawyer for lunch and he wanted to know who actually threw the stuff; the bosses wanted him. The lawyer was a good guy be he was a lawyer. I condemned such activity both to him and to my co-workers but none of us turned him in, everyone was tight. There’s two sides in battle and we stick together. This doesn’t mean we supported such a strategy but to deny someone their income and to take their material needs away, this is extreme violence. This country is the most violent of all the advanced economies; if you have no money here, you die.

    So it’s good they raise this issue of class warfare, it gives us the opportunity to point it out as it occurs every minute of every day. It’s them who are violent. Their whole system is based on exploitation and violence of one form or another.


  6. Sheila says:

    This is nicely written, Kathy, and provides some much-needed consideration of the links between the recent “class warfare” kerfuffle and the Troy Davis execution. These events have, heretofore, seemed entirely disparate, and news media sources have alternated between the two for lead stories, reinforcing that kind of rhetorical disparity despite the real, undeniable overlaps in each.

    Regarding “class warfare,” though: this is a word which, at first, had me excited. I was happy to see a move towards discussions of class politics in the major-stream media — that is, until closer inspection revealed that such was not really the case. Last Tuesday, I was stunned to witness CNN anchor Carol Costello discuss the term “class warfare” and explain to her audience that “this term was, of course, invented by that famous socialist, Karl Marx”. With laughable misinformation aside here, the use of the term “class warfare” appears to be returning us to the rhetoric of “We Are All Socialists Now” (_Newsweek_, February 2009) which, in the wake of Obama’s election, provided a moment of uneasy insight into the psyches of American media consumers. I’m not sure why this kind wide-scale ignorance succeeds, or why Paul Krugman, Elizabeth Warren, and Kathy Newman end up sounding like “lone voices in the wilderness” when they take the trouble to point out such obvious oversight.


  7. steeltownusa says:

    Frequently, I am asked by reporters et al about workers, unions and physical violence. My response is that “I willing to talk about all sorts of violence. Let’s start by talking about economic violence by employers against workers, unions, and working-class communities.” That is, real class warfare.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s