On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote:
>
> I agree generally with this objective, except that I dispute strongly that
> "working class" should define the revoltionary constituency. Globalization
> has created a situation where everyone except the super-rich should be able
> to perceive their disadvantage in continued capitalist globalization, and
> thus the potential constituency for revolution is broader than just
> "working class": this is a development that must be exploited, whether or
> not Marx anticipated it at this particular stage of the dialectic process;
> we need every advantage we can find.
>
While I wholly agree that the proletariat as such enjoys no unique
position, I question the optimism and excessive inclusiveness of this
formulation. How do you address the fact that the top 20% of most
countries _has_ benefited substantially from globalisation? You evidently
wish to return to a post-WWII era of (false) national solidarity and
ideologically eviscerated social democracy, when in fact the antisystemic
political project must be recast as a profound, transnational cultural
struggle, between a hitherto-passive majority (peasants, informal sector,
industrial labour, traditional elites, etc) and this substantial minority,
over the definition of world society itself. Exaggerating the breadth and
amorphousness of your potential support may serve as a fine rallying cry,
but at the level of praxis it is likely to do more harm than good.
Regards,
--AKW
===============================================================================
Adam K. Webb
Department of Politics
Princeton University
Princeton NJ 08544 USA
609-258-9028
http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb