[lbo-talk] Peruvian opinion

[Marvin Gandall]

Doug writes:
>
> On Aug 6, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
>> the support of the majority has
>> been required by all successful revolutionary, national liberation,  and
>> reform movements
>
> Has it really? And what do you mean by "support"? I'm guessing that  even
> in revolutionary situations, much - maybe most - of the pop is  just
> standing aside trying to get by. Revos would have a hard time  surviving
> the intense opposition of the majority, but silent assent is  all you
> need.
================================
Everything I've read convinces me that the Russian, Chinese, and other
successful revolutions were welcomed rather than merely assented to by the
urban and rural masses, who despised their ruling classes and whose
restiveness was displayed in strikes, land seizures, military mutinies, and
growing attachment to the revolutionary parties preceding the seizure of
power. Ditto the mass movements against imperialism in India, Algeria, and
elsewhere. Ditto the New Deal and other peaceful struggles for reform within
the advanced capitalist societies.

Not everyone organizes or demonstrates or takes up arms, but neither are the
masses impassive bystanders in highly polarized situations. Even in the much
more muted circumstances of an election campaign, as in the US today, people
have strong opinions about who they'd like to see win. Multiply that by a
factor of a thousand in a social crisis. Conservatives, of course, hold the
opposite view: they don't believe there is any enthusiastic mass support or
even silent assent for these movements for change, but that the people are,
at best, innocent pawns in the struggle for power between the contending
sides, or, where the evidence suggests otherwise, that they have been duped
or coerced into supporting the left. That's conventional US opinion about
the war in Vietnam, is it not?