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

[andie_nachgeborenen]

What's encouraging about this sort of talk is that the rich are nervous, unsettled, frightened even. They know that the situation is wrong, that their obscene advantages are unjust, that the situation is unsustainable, and the reckoning is coming. There is a lot of sociopathic après moi, la  deluge,mand certain amount of whistling in red graveyard in this article about why they're safe. But they're not. And they know it. Of course when the reckoning comes, in the absence of a coherent left movement, it's likely to be bad for everyone. The rich have as much if not more interest than we do in the development of such a movement, which us together main thing that could stand between them and ropes on lampposts. Bug but get are notoriously short sighted. 

Sent from my iPad


> On Feb 13, 2014, at 11:56 PM, Victor Friedlander <victor at kfar-hanassi.org.il> wrote:
> 
> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk