> Brian:
> Polls since even before last Fall revealed that Americans distrust
> corporations, their boss, and believe they have workplace rights they
> don't. This seems to indicate some commonly held belief about things that
> are harmful to society (unfettered greed, authoritarian work environments,
> etc.)
>
> David:
> ....or, that there's low expectations, cynicism, and apathy around the
> possibility of reforming the business community.
81% of workers thinking they have the right to free speech intheir workplaces doesn't mean they are cyncial, apathetic, et.c It means they assume they have basic rights in workplaces. Likewise, 67 percent said they thought it was illegal for an employer to refuse to hire someone because genetic tests genetic tests revealed a potential health risk. (Washington Post, 8/31/2001) This doesn't indicate cynicism or apathy. There is enough of that, of course. But what causes the cynicism and apathy, then? Because workers have always expected to be treated poorly, because they have low standards?
> Brian:
> Imagine some Americans saying in 1775 that if the American Revolution were
> correct and desirable -if people really wanted it - then it would had
> David:
> The American Revolution was in favor of the class of colonial landholders,
> not "people" in general.
I agree with you. But it depended upon mass mobilization, even of the people who wouldn't benefit from it as much as the class you correctly identify as being the main beneficiaries. My point was this: that one can always say that if some change were really warranted, then it would have happened by "now." (Whenever "now" is.) Nozick used this in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, to criticize the failings of socialism in the US. If socialism was great, wouldn't it have already been achieved by now?
> What you are saying would be true, if revolutions occurred simply because
> propagandists like Chuck thought they were "correct and desirable" for "most
> people."
You've totally lost me here. Their being correct and desirable has nothing to do with why I think revolutions occur. They also do not occur independent of human agency, by abstract "social forces" that sweep in and propel us to do things in accord with deterministic beliefs. They occur by human will; they don't occur because of human will. If no one organizes for one, it will not happen. "Social forces" do not do the work for us. People can live endlessly in penury and not do anything about if no one is consciously organizing them to bring about a change.
> But, individualism and autonomy are the romantic ideology of
> capitalists in the "free market."
I don't see reason to argue with this proviging you mean the kind of bourgeois individualism that regards the individual
> Revolutions do not occur when people would
> "like" them to happen per se, but when the contradictions of a particular
> economic milieu are rammed against each other, forcing antagonisms to the
> surface.
They can definitely occur when people want them to. We are not passive pawns manipulated by economic and social forces. This reminds me of someone I know who wished some software programmer could team upw ith a statistician to develop a program that would determine would the exact "conditions" would have to be before a revolution would happen. There is no such thing. Either people act upon their situations in a manner that is conducive to achieving revolutionary change - or they don't.
> People can't "defer" revolutions by arguing against them! That's
> like saying that people can argue for the stock market to go up or down, and
> who ever has the most "correct" and "desirable" outlook can get what they
> want!
They certainly can - that's why we have a doctrinal and media system that is geared towards suppressing knowledge and information about the workings of corporations overseas. Also, as soon as a Recession is begrudgingly admitted, the papers are immediately filled with news about how the recovery is imminent and just around the corner. And never mind the op-eds and such that even more directly attempt to sway public opinion against activists and towards a reactionary stance.
> Brian:
> As Noam Chomsky says in his Introduction to Daniel Guerin's _Anarchism_ :
> "[S]peculation should proceed to action." If this never happens, even the
> most noble of ideas will not become reality.
> David:
> Is this the like speculation against currency or on investments?
>
> One can speculate all they want. But, without an actual material basis,
> coupled with proper organization, revolution just doesn't happen.
Do you believe things happen without active human involvement? Tell me, how exactly does that work? I would love to know.
Brian