[lbo-talk] Renunciation and revolt

[Michael McIntyre]

Wojtek suggested:
"A belief that people will renouce "capitalism" (i.e. the way of life
as
they know it) for some abstract good (no matter how attractive) if
they
hear a magic word is a pipe dream.  They will revolt or renounce only
if
(1) they cannot continue their way of life anymore, and (2) they think
that an alternative for the better will cost them next to nothing."

These are not independent of one another.  If you cannot continue your
way of life anymore, then you are forced, one way or another, to take on
board the transition costs to a different way of life.  This is
warmed-over Skocpol, anyway - why not just present her original argument
(in simplified form)?

A structural crisis of the state plus a blocking coalition among ruling
elites preventing a revolution from above gives you a political
revolution.

If, in addition, you have structures of peasant cooperation that lower
the costs of collective action, you get a social revolution, not just a
political revolution.

"Not being able to continue your way of life anymore" is the local
consequence of the first two conditions.  The third condition is,
essentially, that pre-existing structures of cooperation lower costs of
transition to radically new forms of life.

So where does that leave us?
(1) Skocpol has no cases of social revolutions where a class other than
the peasantry takes a leading role.  Since the U.S. doesn't have a
substantial peasantry, what class is going to take its place?
(2) If we can identify that class, how do we foster the structures of
cooperation BEFORE the emergence of a revolutionary situation that will
make that class more able to act in a revolutionary situation?