> 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?
Jerry: <<<My solution.... organize, organize, organize, mobilize, mobilize, at work and in our neighborhoods... and do it as democratically as possible. There may come a time when we will have to do more but that is where we must begin. >>>
B:
> You're saying this even though French workers and students
> just won a big victory through strikes and occupations? (You
> mentioned the "Berlusconis" of the world so I assumed you
> included Europe in your pessimistic assessment.)
Look, it goes without saying that if most people were organized, elites would not be able to do what they are doing. In fact, it is tautological, true by definition. The real question is not whether the elite would be able to hold to power if grunts were organized (the answer is obvious), but why aren't the grunts organized? How you answer this question determines what you want to do about it.
The above quoted passages suggest, at least in my mind, that the answer you suggest is insufficient organizing effort, as in the US, as opposed to better effort, as in France. I disagree. Organizing is important, to be sure, but it does not take place in vaccuum. There is a myriad of other factors that affect the level of organization. The fact that the US workers are not in rebellion is certainly not because of th elack of trying. I think there has been more conscious efforts to organize people in the US than almost everywhere else. In fact, the volume of organizing in the US was such that for every left wing organizers there were dozens of counter-organizers, organizing people for religion, consumption, right wing and patriotic causes, philanthropic causes, community concersns and what not.
The point I am making is that the reason why US workers have not been in rebellion is not because they just don't give a shit or that activists did not do a very good organizing job. It is because the elites and fellow travellers had the capability of spoiling the organizing-for-rebellion efforts, and managed to counter-organize US workers, often with eager support of the grunts themselves, as church-goers, NRA members, patriots, consumers, proud white men and what not - anything but left-wing organizations. It seems that they mastered this art of organizing so well, that they routed not just the left, but Democrats as well (gerrymendering, identity politics, fear mongering). If Democrats, who had much larger organizing resources and experience on their disposal, have been reduced to impotence and disarray, what makes anyone think that a "third party" or a bunch of protesters would do any better?
So while it is obvious that things would be much different if people just said "No" to elites, the real problem is how to get there. As I see it, it is not possible right now, because the right has everything going for them - from mastering the art of marketing and opinion manipulation, to having the best experts on their side, to having the comunications technology on their disposal to providing the goodies everyone wants and, most importantly, the grunts themselves eagerly identifying themslves with the right. It will change only if an external force or a natural disaster takes away the right's capacity to manipulate public opinion, manufacture "safe" identities, and deliver the goodies everyone wants. As I read history, succesful revolutions occurred only AFTER the power and control capacity of the ruling elite had already been broken by external forces (wars, foreign occupation, or natural disasters).
PS. Sorry for overposting - I am outta here for today.
Wojtek