[lbo-talk] Why aren't the poor storming the barricades?

[Victor Friedlander]

The whole issue is a red herring.  A social revolution occurs only when
there emerges a revolutionary class, that is a class which has achieved
economic and political power by virtue of having become essential to the
perpetuation of the state, yet is subject to the rule of an anachronistic
ruling class.  Without such a class that can mobilize and organize
widespread dissatisfaction with the ruling class and focus the anger,
design and direct the seizure of the political and economic institutions of
the community, and form a viable alternative to the ancien régime there can
be no revolution.

Incidentally, storming the barricades is neither rare, nor is it an
effective a revolutionary tactic. As an inchoate expression of rage and
disgust it is easily coopted or otherwise overcame by even the most
moribund of ruling classes.

On 13 February 2014 03:36, Charles Brown <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:


> "The worse the better " is false most of the time.
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The storming the castle argument is based om a false premise that the
> > worsening of the conditions sparks a revolt.  In reality, the opposite is
> > true.  it is the betterment of social conditions that spark a revolt.
> >  Better conditions increase people's expectations and when those higher
> > expectations are not being met, people are more likely to turn to
> > alternatives.  If the conditions worsen, retrenchment is the normal
> > behavior.  Economists never understood human psychology.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wojtek
> >
> > "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> This mail was received via Mail-SeCure System.
>
>
>

-- 
Victor Friedlander