>I see in that the same sort of suckering into bourgeois
>institutions that that long article about people not voting
>seems to come out of. The reason people don't vote, of
>course, is because they understand that the problem has now
>been solved by the ruling class in such a way that voting is
>meaningless. The various markets are evidently still unsolved
>in terms of ruling-class control, which is why (as the author
>noted) consumer boycotts and street protests have been much
>more effective than government regulation at backing off some
>of the more egregious corporate evils. That's surprising,
>given the enormous amount of effort that has gone into the
>study of opinion manipulation, but one can't argue with
>phenomena. (Possibly the libbits are right and markets are
>too diffuse to be effectively controlled.)
Non-voting, in my opinion, is a fine choice *if* made strategically. Not voting & not doing anything else politically, however, don't necessarily make political sense. Besides, for an increasing number of Americans today, non-voting isn't even a matter of choice. The war on crimes has *disfranchised* them.
All institutions in this society can be, I suppose, called "bourgeois," in so far as they are all functional to capitalism. Does it make sense, though, to encourage kids to drop out of such "bourgeois institutions" as schools? Too many working-class kids already do, and some kids of migrant agricultural laborers can't even afford to attend school except sporadically. In many poor nations, education is denied an entire generation of peasant & working-class kids beyond a few years. The Taliban & the like don't want to educate girls at all.
You, too, make a living by becoming a wage slave, don't you? Or should you quit so as not to be suckered into a "bourgeois institution"?
Yoshie