Kautsky parle

Juliana Shearer julie at siliconengines-ltd.com
Wed Sep 9 10:19:50 PDT 1998

Okay, I'm a little slow to reply these days. I think that some of Doyle's replies to my post are based on a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say.

For instance, I was not advocating racism or some sort of revolutionary upheaval based on race lines, or even predicting that this will happen. I was merely trying to point out that there are not many working class people who are inflamed with desire for revolution of *any* kind. And those that can even conceive of something like revolution occurring in the "real world" can only see it in terms of their fear of other people creating said revolution.

That said, I guess I have to argue more semantics. When I said that most workers can understand so-called Left or Marxist ideas, but that they do not think that these *matter*, what I was trying to say was sort of echoed by others. Faced with the choice between becoming a revolutionary (or at least, continuing an extended discussion of revolution with whomever it is that is trying to raise the consciousness of the worker), or finishing the job (filling the coffee cup, fixing the auto), it is the latter which usually wins out. Maybe this is dangerously short-term thinking, but it *is* the way people act.

People know that they are in a bad position, but the struggle to even get to the point that they are at usually ensures that they are not willing to risk sacrificing anything in the off-chance that the system can be changed. Why risk your _________ (job / house / car / whatever) for an unrealistic, utopian concept? I just don't see a major uprising any day soon, no matter what position the economy is in.

However, having said all this, I still think that change is something worth working for, which is why I asked to be convinced of revolution. After all, nothing is absolute in this world (well, almost nothing), and nobody said we cannot work for an ideal.

Doyle states that "A serious working class organization on a large scale is needed in the United States." Fine. What should it be, and how can it be created? One huge union? A political party? In order to create a unified organization, there must be something that will bring disparate people together. I find it hard to believe that there is something that could do this. Religion won't. Politics won't. The only thing I can think of that cuts across most differences is something like the AARP, but that's for people who are *done* working!

Oops, I've gotta get back to work.

Julie Shearer julie at siliconengines-ltd.com

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list