>Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
>>I fundamentally disagree. The most convincing ideologies are those claiming
>>a better design for the future or for more people or both, not the ones
>>trying to settle the past scores for some minority or special interest
>>groups. The latter sounds like vindictive whining or being a sore loser.
>
>Yeah, isn't it better to have a "we can do better than this" message
>than a "the evil rulers are screwing you" message? It's not always
>easy to get people to self-identify as victims. It would seem easier
>to get them to sign onto a program that identifies them as the real
>creators in society.
That's all well and good, and I am certainly for the positive message. But it does't work in and of itself, because it doesn't address the fundamental problem or promote radical change. When the average person would believe that seizing a factory on behalf of its workers (whether through direct action or through legislation) is "stealing" from their employer, how do you intend to make it happen, regardless of how positive a message you send?
And on what basis is acknowledging the victim-status of most of the populace inconsistent with "claiming a better design for the future"? Both seem obviously necessary to me, neither one more or less so than the other.
I should say, also, that I understand the word "victim" has negative connotations to it, and I am not advocating using the word, simply the idea that people are indeed getting screwed over and how and why.