Re: Invisible Strengths

 

One could add a "lateral" dimension to this picture. What Gernot calls the "underdogs" contains lots of people who have embraced the Imperial worldview, and who therefore, as broadcaster John Simpson puts it, "hug their chains" in order to defend a dependence which gives them a sense of stability. In the same way, the "dominant classes" are far from monolithic. But I see very little analysis of the fissures which divide them, and of the ways to amplify them. On the contrary, there is far too much (from those who express the "popular classes") that tends to lump the "rulers" all together, and enough chest-thumping to make them clump together. Thus, a lot of what passes for opposition lends support to the status quo.

 

The dividing line does not pass cleanly through the rulers and the ruled. To act as if it does, is to preserve it.

 

If anyone wants to see the original paper, the address is
http://www.athenian.net/marathon/invisible-strengths-full.htm

Petros Haritatos, Athens

-----Original Message-----
From: g kohler <gkohler@accglobal.net>
To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: ÐáñáóêåõÞ, 4 ÌáÀïõ 2001 4:33 ìì
Subject: Re: Invisible Strengths

I see a certain danger that some leftist analysis might have a "self-hypnotizing" effect. Setting out to criticize the power of the dominant classes, it analyses that power in great detail, leading to an awesome view of that power. Having read that analysis, one feels more depressed than before - one is kind of hypnotized and paralyzed. I would not go as far as claiming that the core of the WS or the national ruling classes are "paper tigers". But it should be kept in mind that the periphery of the world-system, while weaker than the core, is not powerless at all. No need for unconditional surrender. Likewise, the people/popular classes (let's say 95%) may be weaker than the ruling classes, but the popular classes (we) are not powerless. Again, no need to behave like a door mat. One should study the potential power of the underdogs (and how to build it) more thoroughly and give it more visibility. Petros' emphasis in "Invisible Strengths" is on the potential strength of the underdogs and possbilities of resistance. But he can tell more about that than I can.

 

Gert