[WS:] I do not think it is an accurate interpretation of my argument.
Obviously, no political system - no matter how rotten - falls by itself.
It must be overthrown. My point it that the odds of overthrowing it change exponentially with its ability to neutralize challenges to the elite rule.
In other words, while it invariably takes a rebellion to change a regime, the rebels' chances of success fundamentally depend on the elite's ability to defend its rule. This "ability" denotes two elements working in tandem - firepower and legitimacy.
Under normal operating conditions, the elite has an overwhelming advantage over challengers to its status - not only a significantly greater fire power, but also support it receives from various segments of society. The latter should not be underestimated. Assorted leftists tend to underestimate the fact (emphasized by Max Weber) that elites typically rule by consensus - that is - because large segments of the population views the superior status of the elites, and by implication their own subordinate status - as legitimate. That is true in even most inequitable distribution of power e.g. in colonized or class societies. As long as the colonial or upper class rule is perceived as legitimate by large segments of society,
the elites can count on using native troops to suppress native insurrections, or working class militia to beat up communist agitators.
The importance of legitimacy, or legitimation (i.e. artificial construction of legitimacy) is far greater than that of elite firepower alone. Or putting it differently, the firepower can enhance the legitimacy of the elite if used "judiciously" - i.e. against "legitimate" targets (e.g. unpopular fringe elements) - but it can also delegitimize the elites and undercut it rule if used in a wrong way. The St. Petersburg "Bloody Sunday" in 1905 (i.e. using firepower against peaceful demonstrators) is the prime example of the latter. Another example is the Gdansk shipyards strike of 1971. In both cases, the elite made a grave strategic error of shooting at a "wrong crowd," and that decision fundamentally undermined its legitimacy and further ability to govern. Also, Gandhi used that principle very effectively: whether challenged (i.e. met with violent suppression) or unchallenged, the "peaceful protest" strategy visibly undermined the legitimacy of the colonial authority and made the Brits see "the wisdom of leaving India."
So any conflict between elites and rebels involves not as much raw firepower but rather a "loose cannon factor." As long as the elite can aim its guns properly (i.e. at "legitimate" targets) it can almost always neutralize the rebels. It is only when the elite loses its ability to train its guns properly either by making a grave strategic error (i.e. shooting at a wrong crowd) or by running out of "legitimate" targets - their firepower becomes a "loose cannon" that further destabilizes the ship or, in some instances, is grabbed by the rebels and used against the elite itself. The only exception is when the rebels are backed by the superior firepower of another state, in which case the rebels can outgun the elites from the start.
Wojtek
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>wrote:
>
> On 2010-09-04, at 11:07 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
> > Carrol: "On the contrary, those who rose in revolt were typically
> inspired
> > by the belief that they were bringing into birth a new world from the
> ashes
> > of the old"
>
> Actually, my quote replying to Carrol. See the exchange between the two of
> us which you reproduced at the bottom of this post.
>
> > [WS:] But that implies that people must believe that a radical change is
> a
> > realistic possibility, no? And such a belief implies a perception that
> > there is a realistic alternative to the status quo exists. If there is
> no
> > alternative in sight, any rebellion - if it ever materializes - will be
> > nothing more than a riot.
>
> True.
>
> > That is why there were many peasant rebellions in
> > pre-capitalist times, but none of them led to any systemic change - even
> if
> > the rebellion was not suppressed by force.
>
> The peasantry did not produce systemic change on its own, but its
> particular interest in land reform and the unrest (riots, land seizures)
> which flowed from it decisively contributed to the overall crisis and
> overthrow of the ancien regime in the French, Russian, and Chinese
> Revolutions, those which first come immediately to mind. Peasant volunteers
> and recruits comprised the bulk of the revolutionary armies. Rebellions
> failed when the peasantry did not break with tradition and peasant
> conscripts crushed the insurrections of the urban classes. The peasantry,
> like the intelligensia, has never been considered an "independent" social
> class, and why it sided in some cases with the bourgeoisie and/or the
> working class and why in others with the landed aristocracy would require
> examination of each historical context.
>
> > Only under capitalism -which
> > revolutionized the old economic order - the idea of radical systemic
> change
> > "trickled down" to the masses.
>
> Once capitalism introduced the notion of political democracy, radical
> intellectuals and artisans began to supply it with a social content, which
> corrresponded to the needs of the urban and agricultural workers being
> ferociously exploited by the new system.
>
> > And one more thing - I am not aware of any instance of an institutional
> > order being abolished and replaced with a radically new order by a
> > rebellion. What seems like successful revolutions (e.g. Russia, China or
> > Cuba) was really instances of systems that were so rotten internally that
> > they have no capacity to counter a revolutionary challenge. In other
> words,
> > revolutionaries succeeded only because the ruling classes were no longer
> > capable of effectively defending their rule. If the elite, even if
> > weakened, still retained that capacity, the challenges to its rule were
> > suppressed (cf. Iraq under Saddam.)
>
> Well, sure. Revolutions have always been understood, certainly by Marxists,
> as events which result from the ruling class no longer being able to govern,
> ie. to maintain tolerable economic conditions and social order. But you seem
> to be suggesting they fall of their own accord. Here I'm with Carrol: "If
> you don't hit, it won't fall". Even the most corrupt and isolated Romanov,
> Kuomintang, and Batista regimes did not abdicate without a prior lengthy
> struggle to repress the revolutionary forces arrayed against them. They fell
> when the revolutionary tremours in the society fractured their armies.
>
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 2010-09-03, at 2:08 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Marv Gandall wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Right. "History suggests the masses won't consider overthrowing the
> >> existing system and experimenting with a new one unless and until a)
> their
> >> personal circumstances deteriorate to the point that they consider them
> life
> >> threatening and b) it has become abundantly clear that neither of the
> >> established parties has proved able to arrest the slide and c) their
> >> desperation for change has finally overcome their fear of repression."
> >>>
> >>> This is terribly, even tragically, wrong. What Marvin describes here is
> >>> the very opposite of the truth: he describesd a world that is perfectly
> >>> caught up in a few words from Old Man River: "Tired of living, and
> >>> feared of dying." No one will revolt in the world Marvin describes, for
> >>> it is a world without hope.
> >> ===============================
> >> Nonsense. No ruling class was ever overthrown without the masses
> >> considering their conditions of life were worsening and there was no
> longer
> >> any hope of peaceful redress of their grievances within the existing
> system.
> >> But this did not mean they were tired of living and devoid of all hope.
> >>
> >> On the contrary, those who rose in revolt were typically inspired by the
> >> belief that they were bringing into birth a new world from the ashes of
> the
> >> old, frequently demonstrating an extraordinary capacity for personal
> >> sacrifice in pursuit of the common goal. "O workers' Revolution,” Mike
> Gold
> >> once wrote, “you brought hope to me, a lonely, suicidal boy" - an
> ecstatic
> >> paean to the struggle for revolutionary change which has been expressed
> in
> >> different ways and different languages by those who were individually
> and
> >> collectively liberated by them at every stage of human history.
> >> ___________________________________
> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>