[lbo-talk] US 2009 = USSR 1990

Wojtek Sokolowski swsokolowski at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 23 12:15:36 PDT 2009


[WS:] I am not dismissing the importance of grassroots movements, in the 1960s as well as in general. All I am saying that such movements are insufficient to overcome elite hegemony. That hegemony must be first seriously undermined before grassroots movements have a chance. My reading of historic evidence from feudalism to modernity seems to support that (cf. Robert Brenner's work on the role agrarian class structure and elite hegemony on the development of capitalism, or Barrington Moore's work on the same subject, or Chalmers Johnson's work on Chinese revolution.)

As far as the 1960s are concerned, let me remind you of on fundamental fact that is not a factor anymore - the USSR. As the Sputnik wen up and Soviet supported national liberation movements across the globe started making headways - the US capitalist elite started making concessions - spending on education went up, southern racists were brought under the federal control, and great society programs were established. When the USSR disintegrated in 1990s, the US elites felt secure again, and all the 1960s concessions were being taken back one after another. If it were not for the current depression, Social Security would be on in its way to privatization as well.

In sum, social movements are important but their success ultimately depends on whether the elite is seriously wounded or credibly threatened to be seriously wounded.

Wojtek

--- On Mon, 3/23/09, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:


> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] US 2009 = USSR 1990
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 1:49 PM
>
>
> Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> >
> > [WS:]  The problem is that the change that you
> are describing almost never occurs by spontaneous social
> movement - it requires a catastrophic event that will wipe
> out the elite hegemony, such as a war, foreign occupation or
> a total economic meltdown.  Think of Russia in 1917, or
> China & Europe after WW2.  Or even US in 1929 -
> economic meltdown coupled with elites legitimately fearing
> Communism.
>
> But the 1930s brought about less change than the 1960s! It
> is dismaying
> how even the let (such as it is) has tended to swallow the
> grotesque
> picture of the 60s given by the popular media at the time
> and carefully
> built on ever since. That decade (actually Rosa Parks in
> the '50s to the
> defeat of ERA in the'70s) is perhaps the most complex
> period in u.s.
> history, and discovering that complexity and its internal
> dynamics
> (seeing through the chaos on the surface) may well be one
> key to
> building a left movemetn in the future.
>
> Note we can't learn from its mistakes; one never learns
> from past
> mistakes because they always reappear loooking quite
> different and one
> has to go through the old arguments again just as though
> the world was
> new.) But one CAN learn from what a period of struggle did
> ritht,
> because it will be obvious that those things can't be
> literally imitated
> and call for thinking in the new context. Several times on
> several lists
> I have heard people babble about learning from the
> Weatherman fiasco.
> Nonsense. I agree the Weather people were jerks, but the
> next Wather
> will be so different that those in it won't recognize tyhe
> parallel and
> will repeat the mistake while thinking that they are
> avoiding it.
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list