>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 12/21/00 07:54PM >>>
In my experience, the Marxist critique of capitalism is common sense to most
working people; it's pretty obvious that the rich run things, that democracy
is a joke, that work is drag because the bosses exploit us, etc. These ideas
can gain wide currency if expressed without Marxist technical vocabulary,w
hich is offputting. The basic ideas of socialism, that democracy would be
extended to the economy, that we can run things ourselves without bosses to
tell us what to do, can also be "sold" to a lesser degree if expressed in
plain, commonsense terms. The "opulist" overtone is a matter of playing on
class resentments. Is this a petit bourg spin? If so, does it matter? --jks
(((((((((((((
CB: The Marxist language is offputting mainly because for about 80 years using that language has been a cause for losing your job or being jailed even. In other words, American workers play dumb like foxes. Then look what happened to the Russian People when they tried it: imperialism put them under the gun for 80 years. In other words, the military intimidation of the Russian Revolution ( and the Viet Namese and the Cuban, and the others) has gone a long way in deterring Americans from risking revolution. It's sort of if you can't beat 'em join 'em logic.
>From my experience, I get the sense that most people don't mind the idea of these improvements, they just are not willing to make the sacrifices the history of the 20th Century demonstrated it would take to make the radical changes. Can't say that I blame them.
Also, "running things ourselves" in a system this big with all the problems is a gigantic job, and a lot of people are not willing to take on the responsibility, clean up capitalism's mess, etc.
And Bill Mazeroski (spelling) to Roger O., who must be from Pittsburgh.