oppose a the politics of more bourgeois progressives from the standpoint of 'real (masculine) labour' - as advocated by those not doing that labour but sniping from the side-lines. If Western economies and employment have shifted from production to services, it's an unavoidable concept.

I think there's some useful underlying analysis with the PMC. There's value in looking at underlying fractions within class analysis (to think about white collar workers as a subset of workers) and to think about where managers fit between capital and labour - but it is so often a vulgar way to

It's not insightful to say Mamdani does not offer a revolutionary political programme (duh) but it is worth reading together the coalitional politics he represents, the promises and constraints of the political programme he looks to advance, and then return to a class analysis of NYC and beyond.

Finally, @gabrielwinant.bsky.social on antitrust as the political economy of small producers, with limits for what it can offer workers. (Part of an excellent symposium I am trying to grapple with - well worth reading) lpeproject.org/blog/marxism...

Although someone better informed could say something about the overlapping rise of contemporary NYC DSA and bodega culture on social media. There's a recurrent opposition to big business and the little guy, but this is hard to explain through the PMC lens.

Then compare to Mamdani's post yesterday about his commitments to small business owners, a strata of petit bourgeoise often distinguished from the PMC. Small business owners are important in Mamdani's economics and rhetoric. bsky.app/profile/zohr...

Didn't Potere al Popolo! try to do some innovation on this front as well? Likewise not a model of electoral success.

ial direction, fit alongside electoral campaigning changes that compel a form of professional campaigning, which all hurts specific competencies of MPs, ministers and party leaders. It's a whole conjuncture shaping candidate development before we even think about fitting in party leader selection.

I appreciate you have a bugbear about members electing party leaders. I think it is important to place emphasis on this point. Changes in the discursive culture in the chambers, go alongside changes in public administration, where managerialism and a reduced scope of the state, and with it minister-

There's a lot of thoughts out there on how Thatcher caused a realignment and created a new generation of middle class Tories but I want to gesture as to how her rise was a product of an existing shift. It also points to an era where some Tories were young and exciting - which is very incongruous.

Might be of interest to @asheinze.bsky.social @duncanmcdonnell.com or @psayoungpol.bsky.social. @timbale.bsky.social or @jamesbarr.bsky.social are welcome to claim credit or identify whose arguments I am interpolating/butchering - it's probably not original.

I only bumped into the connection while looking at Pirie and Butler's bibliographies while trying to explain St Andrews libertarianism so I didn't really get any deeper than what you found. But it's feels like something that could go somewhere.

A bit longer than my other digressions, and with a few more citations. In keeping with the focus on younger and student Tories, there are appearances from (relatively) young versions of Philip Norton, Maurice Cowling, Richard Rose and Patrick Seyd. www.benjaminjthomas.net/musings/cons...

As Lars identifies and is an expert, the connection to draw is between the politics of IQ, race and neoliberalism.
I'd also be interested in the sociological overlap between Mensa, neoliberals and libertarians both materially and culturally for both individualism and attitudes towards the poor.

the political rhetoric of 'working people', which tries to do some of the work of socialist strategy for the PMC without raising the political valences of socialist language but which I think also ends up losing analytical power with the lack of explicit class analysis.

I'm inclined towards 4, which aligns with my broader analysis of Labour ≠ working class takes, but I find it less compelling for explaining the weaker support at the bottom incomes. I'm unconvinced of both the vanguard and the false consciousness claims. I do wonder what this suggests about

I encourage you to look into DJ Horsegiirl, who does exist.

But now I feel like I'm on a different footing when I see discussions about doomerism in politics. We cannot lose hope or accept doom, they say, no matter how bleak the odds look or what we observe, because things cannot improve otherwise. Which strikes me as profoundly weak analysis.

I think he started with the Solidarity/Rawls connection (as a theorist) then went down a rabbit hole of Catholic social thought and Streeck, before trying to return it to theory with Polanyi - as you say, very reliant on his sources. It's not really political economy or history as we might conceive.