« Inequality: the ugly truth | Main | Some paradoxes of democracy »

October 12, 2013



"Revolutions are made not by the most wretched people, but by those who have the power and motive to effect change."

It is possible that the revolution is already under way, made (just as you say) by those with "the power and motive to effect change", but that those folk are the Type I people and that their revolution is moving in a direction that is not the one you would like to see.



I doubt very much that we will ever see the highly automated, superabundant, egalitarian utopian society for which many people yearn for two possible main reasons. Firstly, superautomation is by necessity energy and other natural resources intensive in a finite world already overshooting capacity. Secondly, productive forces organised on such a basis are necessarily hierarchical and technocratic and reinforce social control and elite political power.

The next stage of the industrial revolution may happen (indeed is happening) however, for both the above mentioned reasons, to believe that this abundance can and will be shared around more or less equally i.e. is compatible with freedom and democracy is therefore in my view unrealistic and misguided.

Marx's technologically determinist mistake, which analytical Marxists like Cohen repeat, is to believe that history and the development of the productive forces is always linear and progressive. The last paragraph of this article is complete tosh. Further development of the productive forces would represent a dystopian revolution led by elites in power with the support of those naive enough to believe that freedom and socialism beckons on the other side. The only thing that beckons though is totalitarianism, war, and genocide of the poor and excluded minorities.


------Revolutions are made not by the most wretched people, but by those who have the power and motive to effect change.

Usually those with the means to effect change get some of their power from the "wretched" people.
Marx noted that historically what happens in a revolution is that a middle class uses the lower class to overthrow the upper class, and the new upper class acts just like the old upper class.

Stanley T

Aw, Chris, so you are a romantic after all! Dream on. The trouble with self actualising types is that they make hopeless managers, because management is inherently stressful and boring, thus status driven types are best at it (sociopaths survive in the gene pool for a reason). And if you think that management is unnecessary and hierarchical-elitist, see how anarchist collectives worked out...

Capitalism is the most morally acceptable way of using the status driven, showering them with money is far less harmful than the other things they are good at, making war or being a party apparatchik who tells the rest of us how to behave/think, or else.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad