>A recurrent topic on lbo-talk is the question of "Why is the Left so
> weak?" There is am implicit premise in such discussions that is seldom
> if ever made explicit. The assumption is that left weakness NEEDS
> explanation. But this is quite false. It is as though someone were raise
> the question of why so few people were killed each year by asteroids
> crashing on earth. It's a nonsense question.
>
> The normal state of affairs is the weakness or virtual non-existence of
> A Left. What demands explanation is the occasional existence of periods
> in which the left is strong! That is not normal, and explaining that
> abnormality ought to be a central concern of left theory.
>
> Given this fact (and it is a simple empirical fact of history), there is
> a second phenomenon that needs explantion. Why do so many left theorists
> devote themselves to a false and misleading effort to explain left
> weakness rather than attend to the crucial task of explaining occasional
> left strength.
==============================
Of course, this assumes we're all equally befuddled about the conditions
which favour the appearance of movements from below and those which
discourage it. :)