[Marxism] "Explanations" Divorced from Political Projects
ok.president+marxmail at gmail.com
Sat Jul 29 15:37:08 MDT 2006
On 7/29/06, Yoshie Furuhashi <critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:
> It may be easier
> to get a socialist revolution going at a point in a nation's history
> when masses of peasants are _just beginning to get proletarianized_,
> so they still have personal experiences of both peasant and
> proletarian lives. In other words, it is not the constant state of
> being a proletarian per se but the experience of _disposession and
> displacement_ that gives the strongest subjective impetus to revolt
> and revolution.
That's an interesting thought. I was reminded as I read your lines that the
1970s Italian workers' struggles were often carried out by "first-generation
workers" who had migrated up north from the rural South.
I'm wondering if this holds for non-worker revolts too. Could it be that the
great black protests/riots in the northern US cities in the 1960s and 70s
were, similarly, a result of the dispossession felt by recent migrants from
the Deep South?
If this theory is true, then one should probably look to immigrants (who
often are from rural areas in Central America) as promising activists in
any new round of protest activity unfolding in the near future.
That said, there are two rebellious peoples in the world -- the French
> and the Iranians -- who have managed to rebel on a large scale quite
> regularly (the French) and pull off a revolution (the Iranians) driven
> by predominantly urban uprisings. Their experiences are worth study,
> for those of us who live in predominantly urban and proletarian
The recent experience of Nepal should be remembered too. They pulled off a
revolution a few months ago, with massive demonstrations in the capital,
Kathmandu, and other urban centers.
More information about the Marxism