>I know, that is the standard position of the Left. It is built on the good
>Marxist assumption that it is the people who are the producers, elites
>merely appropriate what other produce - so the elites are utlimately
>dependent of the people and their consent to a particular superstructure. I
>am afraid, however, that this assumption - while true in the past - no
>longer holds. I think that today, thanks to their command of organization
>and technology, elites can pretty much get what they want without support or
>consent of the people.
There are 135 million workers in the U.S. (This includes multiple jobholders as multiple workers, so there's a little double-counting.) Over 80% are what the BLS calls production or nonsupervisory workers. If - and I know it's a very big if - they ever rebelled, the elite couldn't do a damn thing with their organization and technology. For much of US history, US workers haven't been in a state of rebellion, so how is this situation exactly new?
>The military is a good example. In the pas,t elites depended on conscript
>armies which ultimately depended on people's consent to serve. Therefore,
>the elites had to give something back to the people in exchange for cannon
>fodder. But that is no loger true. Today, the elites rely exclusively on a
>mercenary army, which they hire and control without asking for popular
>consent.
They're having a pretty hard time keeping the military together through the Iraq adventure. Officers are ddropping out, and recruitment sucks.
>We live in a new brave world in which popular consent no longer matters - at
>least not as much as it used to.
When did it? In the early 19th century, when only propertied white men could vote? Later in the 19th century, when the likes of Mark Hanna bought politicians wholesale? In the Harding era?
Doug