Introduction
I find it interesting how radical activists forget their own past–such as formerly expressing social-democratic or social-reformist views.
John Clarke, former major organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), posted the following recently (July 09, 2024) on Facebook:
Some people conclude that the insufficient level of social resistance in this society is because working class people are duped [my emphasis] and believe what the corporate media [my emphasis] or right wing politicians tell them. Without doubt, mistaken views and reactionary ideas play a role but the years I’ve spent involved in community based struggles have convinced me that this isn’t the main question.There really isn’t any lack of a basic understanding that this is a massively unjust society and there is a strong wish that things could be different [my emphasis]. What holds people back is an embittered sense of inevitably and powerlessness. They simply don’t see how things could change. This reluctant acceptance of oppressive conditions is overcome during exceptional periods of mass struggle but it returns when such movements subside.Sometimes, a sense of possibility can only be kept alive among a minority of people while, at other precious moments, the desire to fight back is unstoppable. What we must never do, however, is underestimate the strength and vast potential of the seething sense of grievance that is fundamental to capitalist societies.
I find it interesting that Clarke uses the word “duped” and links it to the media. Clarke, on Briarpatch (https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/its-a-crisis-of-legitimacy-for-the-capitalist-system-itself), did a webinar, and David Camfield formed part of the webinar.
Camfield used the same word in his book We Can Do Better: Ideas for Changing Society , in chapter 13, “Why Isn’t There More Revolt,” in the section titled “Defective Explanations”:
Among people who hope for more revolt against injustice, there are three main explanations for why there has not been more resistance. One is that most people in rich countries are duped. According to this view, the culprit is “ideological institutions that channel thought and attitudes within acceptable bounds, deflecting any potential challenge to established privilege and authority before it can take form and gather strength” (Chomsky 1989: vii) — above all, the mainstream media [my emphasis]
I will address Camfield’s views in another post (or posts). Suffice it to say that Clarke, like Camfield, sets up a strawman by claiming that those who see corporate media unduly influencing workers, citizens, immigrants and migrant workers believe that such people are “duped”. By using the word “dupe,” with its obvious connotations of superiority on the one side (those who are not duped) and inferiority on the other side (the duped), they distort the view that the corporate media do indeed unduly influence public opinion. Does Clarke provide any real evidence that refutes such a view?
If it were true that most people understand that “this is a massively unjust society,” then there would not be such union cliches as expressed recently by Tracy MacMaster, union steward and former rep for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) that striking liquor workers are seeking “a fair wage” and a “good job”–as I argued in another post (see The Rhetoric of Union Reps: The So-called Good Job and Fair Wages of Liquor Store Workers). And Clarke, as far as I can see, never calls into question such cliches.
Furthermore, Clarke contradicts himself since he himself refers to the influence of media in an article published in the social-democratic magazine Canadian Dimension on July 15, 2024 (see https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/how-our-struggles-are-contained-by-those-in-power), titled “How our struggles are contained by those in power”:
Given the ability of those with a monopoly of power in this society to dominate public discourse and control the media, it is entirely understandable that delegitimization is another potent weapon at their disposal. When workers go on strike, we read very little in the newspapers about the justice of their demands or how they are mobilizing others to challenge exploitative conditions. Instead coverage will largely be focused on the disruptive impact of their actions on the public.
If we compare the above quote with part of the quote above:
There really isn’t any lack of a basic understanding that this is a massively unjust society and there is a strong wish that things could be different,
we can see that Clarke claims both that there is a basic understanding that we live in an unjust society and that the media are effective in minimizing that understanding by “dominating public discourse.” Clarke seems to be confused.
As for being “dupes,” apart from the issue of the media, I have shown that students in Canadian schools have been indoctrinated by not having them even understand how and why employers exist (see for example A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).
But let us look at Clarke’s own earlier assertions. Does Clarke consistenly express a view that indicates a penetration of the nature of the society in which we live?
From Clarke’s blog:
We need to fight employers to win decent wages.…
Of couse, we need to fight employers to win higher wages and benefits, better working conditions and so forth–but not “decent wages.” Or again (when opposing a proposal for universal basic income):
The alternative is to rejuvenate our unions and fight for decent wages, to fight to increase minimum wages, to fight for workers’ rights….
How does Clarke propose to do that? I have recently criticized–once again–the view that there is such a thing as “decent or fair) wages” I will not repeat it here (see The Rhetoric of Union Reps: The So-called Good Job and Fair Wages of Liquor Store Workers).
Clarke does not subject the concept of decent wages to any critical scrutiny. Ironically, he often refers to exploitation as an essential aspect of a society dominated by a class of employers (and I agree with him on this view), but he excludes any consideration of exploitation when he refers to “decent wages.” Does not the idea of “decent wages” exclude any idea of exploitation if workers receive such wages? Did not Clarke, not too far in the distant past, believe that there was such a thing as “decent wages?” Was he duped?
Furthermore (I will discuss this in more depth when I write a post on David Camfield’s views), Clarke indicated that he had read Marx’s Capital volume three (sometime in 2024). In that volume, Marx refers to the transformation of the value of commodities into prices of production; this involves the possible divergence between the profit or surplus value produced by workers for a specific employer and the profit or surplus value distributed to the particular employer. As a result the profit or surplus value appears to be independent of workers. Are workers in such a situation duped? Or is it that the economic and social structures are such that the reality of workers being exploited is hidden? Is it that the class nature of exploitation (and not just the exploitation of workers by a particular employer) contribute to the difficulty of understanding the injustice of present society?
Conclusion
Clarke’s reference to “decent wages” itself expreses implicitly, a view that the society we live in can somehow be just. There are, indeed, many processes and activities that prevent workers, citizens, immigrants and migrants from gaining “a basic understanding that this is a massively unjust society.” One such process is the divergence in the amount of surplus value produced for a particular employer and the amount actually distibuted to the particular employer–an intraclass process of competition between different employers.
The mass injustice of this society, as far as I can see, is often underestimated, and there are various processes that contribute to such an underestimation. Clarke simply ignores such processes, with the consequence of underestimating the importance of ideological struggle against views that paper over various forms of injustice. The working class is hardly served by ignoring such processes; by ignoring such processes, the development of a movement that challenges the class power of employers and aims to create a socialist society is impeded.
The Abolitionary 