File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9709, message 533


Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 13:44:20 -0400
From: james m blaut <70671.2032-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: M-I: Jim Blaut on proletarians (fwd from moderator)


Reply to Crrol and (briefly) to Louis P.):

Carrol:

You say: "Jim, how many workers in the U.S. fit this rather specialized
slot? (Not a guess or an estimate: some reasonably dependable figures.)
There
were a scattering of such children in my classes at ISU over the years,
and they were not getting any support from their parents, all of whose
extra resources were devoted to supporting, somehow or other, *their*
surviving parent(s). In other words, even among just college students,
the majority of their parents have a lower standard of living than
you describe." 

I reply: I probably exaggerated about the second car in the garage. But
most majority workers in the US owntheir house and probably have paid off
the mortgage (or their parents did). And the majority of white weorking
class kids go to college.  I don't mean "white" --  I mean non-minority or
non-Third World. In what way, then, do we differ on this matter?

You say: "I'm extremely bothered by your emphasis on the necessity of
"suffering"
for revolution, because I've respected your posts highly, and this
attitude (essentially a moral rather than a marxist one) so often
leads first to ultra-leftism and then out of the movement entirely."


  I reply: Tell me, Carrol Cox (and anyone else who wishes to comment): 
how often have you heard of socialist-oriented revolutions, or e
ven progressive peasant revolutions, that were made by masses of people
 who were not suffering economically? It is true that a declining
living standard is also a spur to unrest, but probably (if we are
 talking about working classes) only if the people perceive a danger
 that tbeir fortunes will decline until they will suffer badly --
 lose their land, etc. It was widely argued by mainstrweam social scientists 
that the poorest people do not m,ake or join revolutions. This is true 
to some extent. But my point is that *some* very poor people make revolutions,
 while *hardly any* workers with US-majority-type living standards and 
comparable expectations make revolutions -- I am talking about masses 
of people, not the odd working class kid who becomes a committed socialist.

Why is this so controversial? I suppose the answer must be that Carrol 
and others hold a position that movement toward socialism is primarily
generated by moral repugnance toward capitalism and by intellectual
understanding (enlightenment?) of the possibility and virtues of socialism.
This stuff is believed in by evolutionary socialists, but not. I think, by us 
revolutionaries. I don't think
this is what makes revolutions. And in poor countries, it is not some
strange "nationalist urge" which makes people rise up against the
colonizer. It is hunger, despair, loss of land, loss of hope...


To Louis:

You say: "You do not need economic privation for workers to radicalize. The '68
May-June French events and the prolonged revolt in Italy in 1969 took
place against a backdrop of relative prosperity. Even in the United States
during this period, the student radicalization had begun to seep into the
ranks of industrial labor. Auto-workers formed "revolutionary" caucuses in
Detroit and elsewhere."

I comment: I just don't asgree that mass radicalization of a working class, 
leading to real revolutionary motion, will come i n the absence
of what you call "deprivatiion." France '68, Italy '69, US 60s students
-- this, regrettably, was a very limited and short-lived phenomenon. 
The only thing approaching revolution in that period was the civil rights 
movement.And Blacks and Latinos were not deprived? Gimme a break.

I add: The rest of your mesaage a basically agree with, and you make some
important points. However, I *sense* that you are burdening the left leader-
ship with too much credit and too much blame. I am not ultra-left, but 
I believe that the source of revolutionary motion is in the masses
of people. Leadership is necessary but vastly insufficient. Moreover, in 
somwe cases, the people create leaders (Toussaint, Zapata, etc.).

y la lucha continua

Jim Blaut
  


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005