I think we are just at crosswires in the below. I never said that human agency wasn't necessary for revolution. But, nor are revolutions simply determined by "human will" alone. There are real economic determinisms at work, always. People cannot be convinced by the media that they are not poor, not unemployed, or don't have bad work conditions, when this is the immediate reality.
I've gotta quote from the CM again: "Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views, and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life? "What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellecutal production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. "When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence."
I think my original point was that folks like Chuck seem content with the fact that they have dreamed up an appropriate and correct way that revolutionary society will begin to create itself based on people's ideas or willpower alone, when really these ideas can only enact themselves within the context of a strong material basis on which to enact them: i.e., a strong movement socially and financially based in workers, and a dialectically historical juncture whereby the means of production are stretched to the breaking point.
If all it took was good ideas and a populace willing to enact them, why don't we just declare hands down that the Russian Revolution, for example, was a complete success? The conditions were not there for anything other than reformism and reactionary paranoia. Anyway, I think you see what I mean.
Best,
David
---------------------
> 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