Re: cult of impotence -- globally

RH wrote:
>but I wonder about the propaganda effect of saying there is less
>inequality.  If the problem is not as severe, then the need for action is
>less severe.


GK: it's a tricky problem, but I would argue that the "logic of action" or
"psychology of action" may be different. Let's take two situations -- the
psychology of the topdog and the psychology of the underdog.

(a) topdog: in war situations you have the old "triage system" -- the doctor
(topdog) looks at the bodies as they come in and classifies them in three
ways: (1) dead, (2) hopeless, (3) salvagable. Category 3 gets the medical
attention. In other words, the "hopeless" get no help and the "less
hopeless" get help from the topdog. Other example: professor (topdog)
surveys students. There are four categories: (1) the never-present, (2) the
hopeless, (3) the salvagable, (4) the good. Categories 3 and 4 get the
teachers attention, not the hopeless. Other example: First World money elite
(topdog) looks at countries in the rest of the world. There are three
categories: (1) the hopeless, (2) the promising (smelling of profits), (3)
the competitors. Investment money and grants money tends to bypass category
1. Now back to propaganda. If you can manipulate the perception which a
topdog has of a needy human entity (individual or country), from "hopeless"
to "hopeful/promising", the topdog is more likely to help. Case in point:
Russia -- first, the West promises billions of dollars; then, as the Russian
situation looks less promising to the West, the promised billions are
withheld. The fund raising industry has worked this principle to perfection:
you must not look needy in order to make the filthy rich come forward.

(b) underdog: from theory of revolution, what little I know about it, it is
clear that the absolute powerless do not rebel, do not feel empowered, do
not even ask for consideration of their existing rights, what little right
they may have. Only individuals and classes which do not perceive themselves
as completely down will take action on behalf of their own interests. Thus,
if you can manipulate the self-perception of the underdog from "absolutely
powerless" to "weak but not hopeless", he/she/they may take action.

In conclusion: on grounds of (a) and (b), it may not be a bad idea to say
60/40, instead of 80/20 with respect to the world-system. Let's ask some
activists with experience ...

GK