In contrast to an 'ECT' version of consciousness, that says workers need to be shocked out of their passivity, I'd argue Marxists don't need to be elitist. It's not poverty, or being exposed to the harsh realities of capitalism, that makes workers revolt. Working people already know capitalism is awful. They should: they live it every day of their lives. To focus on 'ripping the veil away' from capitalist exploitation implies a choice, whether to 'see the system' or not.

"You'll be even more of a Marxist when we turn this dial..."

The essence of capitalism is that it removes choice. You have to work, or you starve. Any worker can tell you, much more eloquently than a student, what it feels like to devote your life to an alien machine called the office or the factory. They won't use academic language; instead they'll say, "Same shit, different day", speak confidently about starting their own business out of their pitiful wages, or drink themselves to death.

Bought off?

What about the 'privileged layers'? The workers with the SUVs and holiday homes? Doesn't the gluttony of the western lifestyle mean workers can't be revolutionary?

I'd argue this is a too-easy answer in the face of complex realities. It assumes the ideological effect of material comfort is complacency. In fact it was the Frankfurt School which showed how luxury is contradictory. Even the nicest toys can't eliminate alienation, because alienation is not a psychological condition. It's a structural feature built into capitalism: the separation of workers from the labour process.

SUVs don't breed complacency. At best they provide temporary shelter, a sense that, for now, you're keeping up. At worst they breed fear - that others will take your stuff, and more importantly, that your neighbour has a better, newer SUV. This fear is rooted in private property - the property you don't have, or that can be taken away from you. For most people, I'd imagine it's a little of both.

I know I'd be happier if it was just a bit longer

Capitalism is not about accumulation per se, but about differential accumulation. It's not how much you have, but how much you have relative to everybody else. You can never have enough, so you can never be truly happy. Capitalism creates its own libidinal contradictions. A theory that proceeds from the bought-offness of western workers is one-sided.

Time tough

The other side is poverty. Where are all these bloated, privileged western workers? According to the report Time For A Fair Deal, released last week, "Roughly 30 percent of low-wage workers or 6 percent of Canada’s labour force do not earn sufficient income to meet their costs of living." That's 6% of workers who, in Canada's biggest city, don't earn what the TCSA calls the "minimum income" of $15,000 a year - a lowball estimate. And that 6% is within the working poor. There are three times as many making between 15-$20K (called the Low Income Cut Off rate.) It might buy the back seat of an SUV.

Many people are scraping by. As for the folks in their Muranos, who cut me off everyday veering into my bike lane, they can be summed up in a handy little Leninist term: 'class enemy'. If they want to renounce their entitlement and join the cause, that's great - we could use the funding. But I'm not wasting my breath convincing them.

Up against the wall, motherfucker

'One class-conscious worker is worth 100 revolutionary students'

It's no accident that many intellectuals are middle class: those are the only people who don't have to work for a wage to survive. As my academic readers will quickly add, this isn't the case for most students or faculty: we're wage workers both on and off-campus. (By the way, this is another reason I'm so frustrated with my fellow academics, for abandoning or refusing to explore Marxism just as it's becoming relevant to their lives.)

But the holdover, the 'guild mentality' of some academics who think they're part of a special strata rather than mental labourers, creates a disdain for actual struggle. The attitude that 'we understand the system better than you' is premised on being outside it, looking in.

Theory I like

I'm pro-theory: I don't think you can build a socialist movement without reflecting on all aspects of human existence. That means studying economics, philosophy and culture, breaking down disciplinary barriers. And one of the few places you can get funding to do that these days is in academia.

However, I'm against theory that erases actual people's struggles. I see no difference between a Communist claiming "all German workers hated Jews", and an anti-Communist claiming "Lenin led a band of terrorists." Both ignore history in favour of their own theories. Both reflect their class position - and the older I get, the more comfortable I am with 'determinism': that one's social class plays a huge role in shaping one's ideas. Marxist students, 'mental labourers', have to approach their work with a huge dose of humility, to recognize how our own circumstances affect our consciousness.

Tomorrow: how hope happens