...the low end of the Proletariat Revolution; beggars, whores and thieves ...
Analysis of the meaning of events begins by situating them in their historical epoch. Consider unrest in recent years.
At the very least that returns to 1989 – 1991. Utterly unforeseen by any think tanks, talking heads or partisan pundits, Dec 25, 1991 happened. The dismantling of Stalinist regimes and finally of the USSR was hailed by ruling elites as the ultimate, irreversible triumph of capitalism. As an alternative to Capitalism, the specter of socialism, it was confidently proclaimed, was finally vanquished. Fukuyama called it the end of history. So what followed?
The reactionary ruling class offensive dating back to the 80s was intensified. The 1990 – 1991 Gulf War began three decades of unrestrained imperial neo-colonialism and militarism with all its attendant miseries, including 80 million refugees. Since proclaiming ‘War on Terror’ in 2001, there has not been one day when the US was NOT at war.
But that’s the international situation; what followed history’s end domestically?
The principle feature of the past three decades in the US is the growth of staggering levels of social inequality. In addition to ending social programs, wages were slashed and entire industries dismantled to fuel the relentless rise of stock markets. The inevitable by-product is the breakdown of democratic forms of rule. Massive accumulation of wealth creates social tensions which cannot be reconciled through traditional democratic means. State violence against the poorest and most vulnerable of the working class assumes ever more brutal/lethal forms.
Why does this matter?
It matters because whereas some portray rising social unrest as the work of one or another partisan faction or of this or that well-funded ‘radical,’ the historical epoch indicates something very different. Protests of the past several years both here and abroad are but the initial emergence of global resistance to the economic, technological and class foundations of modern societies. The outrage behind unrest arises from the global experience of the working class. Failure or refusal to reckon with that drives much of the so-called ‘dialogue’ in the marketplace – or internet forums as the case may be.
History involves continuity and it is our actions across decades which brought us to this day. History is catching up with the United States. No blame-shifting, rationalizing, partisan caricatures, political maneuvering, bombing campaigns, flag-waving, cursing, conjuring or conspiracy theory can change that.
So is this thumbnail sketch what analysis supposedly looks like?
Not so fast!
Describing the historical epoch from which events arise and to which they events is but an initial step. This ‘history’ raises very many questions which must be addressed. A
short sample of these may include:
1. What implications arise from epochal characteristics, conditions and policies? Are they inevitable?
2. Why so little to no resistance until now? What conditions persisting across those decades accounts for that?
3. What drove the stock market during this period? Where do these forces stand now? Are they effective?
4. What periodic or epochal changes are now underway? How do present conditions relate to this?
5. What changes develop as unrest moves form initial stages to political maturity?
6. What is the current ruling elite strategy for diverting the coming struggle?
7. What historical and political forces dominate unrest and the attempts to contain/repress it?
8. How do citizens regard ‘leaders’ and ‘institutions?’ What is the ruling class anticipating from this?
9. What means are at the disposal of the working class? What means are at the disposal of the regime?
10. To what point are these processes moving? What is emerging from it?
Doing with each of these among other questions] what I did with the ‘situational context’ moves toward what I call ‘analysis.’ Perhaps what I'm seeking might be sought more aptly on another forum. You know this place better than I do.
You are, of course, correct that the Constitutional document does prohibit the assumption of titles of nobility. Yet in its simplicity, that remark regarding the revolutionary rabble resembles nothing so much as the perspective of Louis XIV. But if the prerogatives of nobility are acceptable barring only the title, the Constitution is guilty of gross hypocrisy. If on the other hand it intended to bar the preogatives with titles, I gather from the antecedent remark by your hand that this constitutional 'word' is now a dead letter.
All the best!
-- Trotsky’s Spectre --
