I wrote a review of Linda Coleman’s new book. Which you can read here.
Book Review: ” Radical Descent”…Into What?
Ted Rall
http://rall.comTed Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
Comments are closed.
9 Comments.
Some say non-violent revolution works far more often than violent revolution. Actually, both almost always fail.
The American whatever it was (not considered a revolution by Marxists) would probably have ended with the US still a British colony had it not been for the French who were at war with the UK and saw a cheap way to injure the British.
All of the many attempts at revolution back in ’48 completely failed.
Lenin had help from Kaiser Transiente. Lots of it. Could he have managed without it? No way of knowing for certain. (My guess, no.)
India got independence through no fault of the non-violent Ghandi followers OR of those who employed violence. In 1947, the US announced that the European Imperial powers had to divest themselves of their empires (which banned the import of US finished products by their mercantile colonies). Britain wasn’t at all happy about it, and would not have agreed in the absence of American insistence, but was given absolutely no choice.
The US is now expanding a global neo-empire that requires the killing of anyone who threatens US corporate profits, as detailed by Mr Rall and John Perkins. And has been, with great success in Latin America since the days of Monroe. The US had a little trouble after WWII when the USSR funded and armed those who opposed the US annexing their country as a US neo-colony and who figured they’d get a better deal as a USSR neo-colony.
Those who were against those neo-colonial wars lost at the polls, as most voters thought that the US was the Greatest Force for Good in the World, and our leaders were doing the right thing by waging war to keep the evil Commies from closing all our churches and making us queue for bread.
But then the USSR collapsed.
So now our fearless leaders have us waging neo-colonial wars to prevent the evil Muslims from turning all our churches into mosques and making us queue for goat, and the majority of voters support those wars.
And I don’t see any hope for the success of a violent OR non-violent revolution as even a tiny speck on some far distant horizon.
A well written review for the most part, but I must question this statement:
“Revolutionary situations require a witches’ brew of state oppression, economic despair, and bourgeois sympathy triggered by self-interested frustration with their own inability to advance their station in society, among other factors. The fact that none of those basic conditions existed in the late 1960s or the early 1970s”
They didn’t exist in the 60s? Seriously??
No state oppression? Kent State ring a bell? The draft? FBI spying on peaceniks?
No economic despair? Perhaps not in the case of the author, but there damned well were poor people in the 60’s, blacks living in tar paper shacks a stone’s throw away from the Antebellum mansions they tended. Inner city residents with no hope of ever breaking the cycle of poverty. Even then, the biggest predictor of personal wealth was the wealth of one’s parents. Children of the wealthy needn’t fear the draft the way the rest of us did. while for many of the poor it was the only chance they had for regular employment.
Bourgeois sympathy missing as well? Wasn’t that the author’s motivation in the first place?
The Time’s They Ain’t a Changin’ near so much as gen X would have you believe. The sorry state of the world isn’t a new thing by any means, and X’ers aren’t the first to walk face first in into the same brick walls the rest of us discovered a generation previously.
The problem with ALL revolutions is that their best (populist) leaders are all closet aristocrats.
DanD
Let’s see, first, nice review Ted. As usual, pulled no punches. Second, Crazy H, I think you’re wrong, and Ted is basically right. Exception being the situation for blacks, but that was localized an ignored by a large chunk of the “left” at the time, exception being the old reds and their kids. One big thing was that the anti war movement and the hippies and such completely ignored the unions, actually worse, they worked against them. A large chunk of the hippie movement was either apolitical or actually quite right wing (see Kesey, Ken). Another thing was that the real left had major issues at the time. The CP in the US hadn’t been actually Marxist for ages (thanks to Stalin), though they did at least work with the unions. Actual Marxists like the SWP split early in the 60’s with a big chunk deciding to go the popular front route. There was no vanguard to educate and lead.
All I can say, Suetonius, is that you must have lived through a different 60’s than I did.
Many white people marched in the civil rights demonstrations; union members were typically hostile to hippies; and while many longhairs weren’t politically motivated those that were were most definitely on the leftward side of the aisle. And yes, there were poor people of all colors – always have been.
Kesey? The Acid Christ, the Merry Prankster and author of Cuckoo’s Nest, a wingnut? Seriously? A few choice Kesey quotes:
The Grateful Dead are our religion. This is a religion that doesn’t pay homage to the God that all the other religions pay homage to.
The Republican consciousness has no integrity and it falls apart once you check it out. If you’re a Christian, why would you want to fry this dude?
If you’re a Conservative, why aren’t you behind conserving the land?
I used to think we were going to win in the ’60s. Nixon went out and I thought we won.
Crazy
Yes, plenty of white people marched in civil rights demos, but the real work was done by a pretty small group. Lots of demos, nothing much actually happening, since there was no program to speak of. Kind of like Occupy nowadays, only more so. And Kesey, wrote a horrific anti union novel “Sometimes a Great Notion.” No leftist he. Cuckoo’s Nest is queasy libertarian stuff, though fun.
So you would ignore the man’s entire life as well as his other eight or nine books, and base your opinion solely on his characters’ attitudes about one particular issue in one particular novel? Attitudes that are reflected nowhere else in his writings? Further, you would use that as a basis to argue that a large chunk of the hippie movement was right wing?
Not buying it.
Let’s apply the same sort of logic to the unions of the 60’s. The AFL-CIO and most labor unions supported the Vietnam war. The Hard Hat Riot showed just how strongly they opposed those who would see it end.
Therefore unions are themselves right wing. True or false?
Uh, I said “apolitical or right wing.” And unions had plenty of right wing positions, but as a Marxist I will defend the unions unconditionally while fighting agains those positions. And Kesey was no leftist, of any sort, as any reading of his work, or analysis of his life, will clearly demonstrate. Dropping lots of acid does not make you a leftist.
Examples, please?
Both of other right wing hippies (an unspecified percentage of a large chunk) and of Kesey’s other right wing writings.