Anarchist diatribe on Naomi Klein + what's so bad?

[Gordon Fitch]

kelley:
> ... 
> but seriously, one of the arguments we've had here is over the economic 
> conditions under which people get "pissed off".  some, follow the 
> historical examples of unrest during economic downtowns and the marxist 
> assertion that people will be more likely to throw off their chains when 
> they have nothing left to lose.  others have suggested that it may also be 
> the case the people get angry precisely when things are going 
> great.  people say, "if life is so great why am i unhappy?"  or why is my 
> employer still trying to niggle out of paying us what we're worth or 
> extract the most from us?  or why do i look around and still see pockets of 
> squalor and poverty?  it also presents opportunities for people to point 
> out the problems or contradictions--in the way, for example, that Martin 
> Luther King did in Letter from a Birmingham Jail.  e.g., if these are the 
> ideals this country upholds, then why are you *really* upholding them?

A theory of revolution I have often heard, but do not know
the source of, is that revolutionary situations are produced
not within the ruled lower orders, but as a result of the
internal condition of the ruling class, resulting in failure
or inability to rule and thereby suppress competitors for
power.  Although the elitist flavor of the theory is unpleasant
to me, it does seem to be often borne out in history -- the
boots going up the stairs, the slippers coming down (I think
that's Voltaire).

If the theory indeed reflects phenomena, then the widespread
observation of the Dilbert effect in business, academia and 
government should give all revolutionaries hope.