> Punctuated equilibrium. The parallel with human history is pretty
> stunning, and pretty difficult to give a coherent meaning to. I don't
> know what the connection is, even if there certainly appears to be
> one. Perturbations in superficially stable systems that gyro out of
> stability in the absence of internal or external driving causative
> forces---the configuration of the system itself generates them.
> I realize that the political economy is not a psychological entity,
> but it sure feels like one.
Analogies from biology and evolution are useful to some extent, because human behavior is reflects biology to some extent. But the problem that the left introduces to the discussion about the prospect for revolutionary change is that it rests on deterministic assumptions. We need to realize that as conscious humans, we have agency that can cuase things to happen. We aren't merely pawns in some big cycle of psycho-history.
I see and read this deterministic worldview constantly on this list. I've studied it on the Left. The ISO was pretty amusing several years ago when it engaged in this internal discussion about how it "had missed Seattle." If your activism relies on tarot-card readings about the direction of THE MOVEMENT, you will completely miss out on the widespread self-activity and organizing happening in different communities, physical, political, and so on.
There is no magical formula for creating the conditions for the punctuated equilibrium that leads to political revolution. Revolutions can snowball quickly. At other times, conditions may seem favorable but nothing happens.
I was kvetching to an anarchist comrade this morning about the overbearing excesses of the Anybody But Bush movement. I was remarking on the ahistorical nature of some of the ABB hysteria, at least among activists who truly think that Bush Jr. is far worse than Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon. My comrade remarked at how truly scary Ronald Reagan was, especially the cult of personality that was built up around him. Both of us are old enough to remember Nixon, so we were talking about him. I brought up the fact that the 1970s was a time of radicalization for Americans, where lots of people were shocked to find out what Nixon had done. My friend related an incident that he remembers when a friend of the family expressed shocked over the COINTELPRO revelations. The radicalization of the 1970s and the discrediting of American institutions had a long term impact, including its influence on us youngsters who became activists in the 1980s.
Ironically, my comrade pointed out that a similar process really couldn't happen in America now, since most people just assume that government and big institutions are corrupt (might this be a reason why people aren't turning on Bush?).
As Chuck points out, there must be some processes happening right now that will lead to radical social change in the future. Surely the draconian police state will provoke a backlash. Poor people are ebing fucked over like never before--they have no safety net to speak of. And I think that young people will explode in several years just like in the 1960s. You have this younger generation that enjoys material wealth in their families, but they have few economic options. There is no dot-com economy for these teenagers to aspire to becoming part of.
But I think it's important to be an active agent in creating revolutionary change, not just trying to forecast when it might happen.
Chuck0