SYLVIA KASHDAN the proletariat (defined as workers directly involved in production, blue collar industrial workers) has never become capable of revolution, at Ieast not at the rlght moment (a.n easy expia.- nation for failed revolutions and a reasoned excuse for seeking out other vangua.rds). They have been e!ther too intimidated or too satisfied to a.et, too stupid or too blasé to adopt the correct revolutionary position. Even when adopting a broader conception of the proletariat (including service sector workers, all those who are nothing and know it. etc.) most have tended to see the problem of fa.Ise consciousness or Ia.ck of revolutionary consciousness in terms of a sell-out and the achievement of true consciousness in terms of m111tant adhera.nce to the revolutionary product. They have presupposed that the products which ca.pita.l!sm is ca.pa.ble of producing ca.n satisfy those who are subjected to the most profound and global al!enation and dissatisfactions. History again and a.gain belies them. They mistake survival for satisfaction and are thereby the greatest believers in the capital!st myth (shared by the rulers of the so-called socialist countries) that people can be pacified and even satisfied by the given status quo, if it is only reformed sufficiently so that it will work smoothly and «equitably> in its own terms; in more simplistic terms, if people cannot be satisfied by bread alone, the addition of roses, candles and cake with iclng will do the trick. The perspective Just described is of the most use in understandlng what the ldeologues themsclves are prepared to settle for - perhaps with a llttle power thrown in. Two fine examples are afforded by the Ylppie (Youth International Party, also a play on the word Hippy) «revolutionary cultural vanguardlsts> Jerry Rubln and Abble Hoffman. From a cultural guerrilla Rubin has turned to proclaiming the virtues of the ballot box; while Hoffman proclalms the joys of belng an underground fugitive, sought by the pouce authorities, and declares that he w111remaln underground ln this mode of llfe even if the state should pardon him. Their minimalist perspective has only been shlfted, not changed. Constituency, audience and power in general remain thelr true concerns. The conglomeratlon of ccounterlnstitutlons, (communes, alterna.te media, vartous cooperative enterprlses and lite-styles, etc.) known as «counterculture• - while at times, ln themselves, more bearable and even pleasant modes of survlval - do not in themselves provlde a training ground for, or an alternative to, revolutionary actlvlty. 24
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==