For nearly a century and a half (up to post-war years) the mass of the working class as well as the mass of the (potential) reserve army (small farmers in the u.s. plus peasantry in nations with large migrations to the u.s.) == workers and potential workers -- lived in pretyy dire straits, those conditions be the base of the radical movements that emerged (but never really got anywhere). In other words, capitalism can get along pretty well with an impoverished mass of workers and unemployed.
That is a fifth (I lost track of the number) alternative in response to growing unemployment. I gather that the bulk of marxists still cling to the idea that misery breeds resistance. It brteeds resistance in a small but ineffectual core, but it breeds despair and passivity in the mass. When Luxemburg coined her slogan, "Socialism or Barbarianism," she was snot simply urging the rroops on -- she believed (rightly I think) that in a world in which the major force was contingency, barbarism was at least as likely, perhaps more likely, than soc8ialism. I think the last 100 years have confirmed her fears. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
