Looking for a specific quotation about the middle class and its resistence to revolution.
November 15, 2011 3:04 PM Subscribe
Looking for a quotation related to the middle-class's resistance to revolution.
Some years ago, I recall reading a quotation in which the author stated, essentially, that revolution would be unlikely to come from the poor in the United States, because the economic interests vested in the middle class would be inducement for them (the middle class) to use their force arm (the police) to suppress any threats to their property rights. And thus, the middle class, essentially, would be a great inertial weight that prevents progress from changing too much.
It's an interesting take, suggesting that the middle class may be as much at cause for promulgating the status quo as is the wealthy, and salient to today: especially as the middle class itself is being threatened by economic inequality and may therefore be more interested in tolerating revolutionary tendencies. Anyway, an interesting idea.
So I'd like to read more about the context of that quote, but I can't find it. Does anyone know of this quotation and/or its author? I was thinking it might have been Margaret Mead, but I can't seem to find it.
Some years ago, I recall reading a quotation in which the author stated, essentially, that revolution would be unlikely to come from the poor in the United States, because the economic interests vested in the middle class would be inducement for them (the middle class) to use their force arm (the police) to suppress any threats to their property rights. And thus, the middle class, essentially, would be a great inertial weight that prevents progress from changing too much.
It's an interesting take, suggesting that the middle class may be as much at cause for promulgating the status quo as is the wealthy, and salient to today: especially as the middle class itself is being threatened by economic inequality and may therefore be more interested in tolerating revolutionary tendencies. Anyway, an interesting idea.
So I'd like to read more about the context of that quote, but I can't find it. Does anyone know of this quotation and/or its author? I was thinking it might have been Margaret Mead, but I can't seem to find it.
Is it this one from John Steinbeck:
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
posted by destro at 6:16 PM on November 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
posted by destro at 6:16 PM on November 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
This is a pretty basic idea within Marxism generally. The poor are the proletariat, the middle class are the bourgeoisie, and the latter are by nature counter-revolutionary. (These would be the search terms you'd want to use, although it's possible the quote you're thinking of did not use them.) The idea of the division in society being between the 99% and the 1% is fairly novel and, I suspect, could only have come from America. So the inertial weight of the middle-class against revolution isn't so much an "interesting take" as a fundamental tenet of the Marxist critique of capitalism. Anyway.
For example, here's Trotsky quoting himself (you can search through that article for numerous other candidates in the same vein):
‘Our liberal bourgeoisie comes forward as a counter-revolutionary force even before the revolutionary climax. At each critical moment, our intellectual democrats only demonstrate their impotence. The peasantry as a whole represents an elemental force in rebellion. It can be put at the service of the revolution only by a force that takes state power into its hands. The vanguard position of the working class in the revolution, the direct connection established between it and the revolutionary countryside, the attraction by which it brings the army under its influence – all this impels it inevitably to power. The complete victory of the revolution means the victory of the proletariat. This in turn means the further uninterrupted character of the revolution.’
posted by dhartung at 11:10 PM on November 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
For example, here's Trotsky quoting himself (you can search through that article for numerous other candidates in the same vein):
‘Our liberal bourgeoisie comes forward as a counter-revolutionary force even before the revolutionary climax. At each critical moment, our intellectual democrats only demonstrate their impotence. The peasantry as a whole represents an elemental force in rebellion. It can be put at the service of the revolution only by a force that takes state power into its hands. The vanguard position of the working class in the revolution, the direct connection established between it and the revolutionary countryside, the attraction by which it brings the army under its influence – all this impels it inevitably to power. The complete victory of the revolution means the victory of the proletariat. This in turn means the further uninterrupted character of the revolution.’
posted by dhartung at 11:10 PM on November 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
I did in fact find some very relevant quotations and commentary on the somewhat cranky-looking Completing the American Revolution (although it looks OK to me, the guy seems to be a reformed LaRouchie). Give it a scan.
posted by dhartung at 11:28 PM on November 15, 2011
posted by dhartung at 11:28 PM on November 15, 2011
This is the subject of the chapter "The Coming Revolt of the Guards" in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. You'll find any number of choice quotes on this theme there. I believe police officers are mentioned explicitly in the beginning of the chapter.
posted by jingzuo at 9:46 AM on November 16, 2011
posted by jingzuo at 9:46 AM on November 16, 2011
Response by poster: Thank you, all, but I don't think it was a Marxist, per se, that was writing the quote I remember. In fact, it seemed rather matter-of-fact observation, and I don't remember it being really axe-grindy so much. Just an observation that the middle class actually has something to lose (property) in a revolution, and therefore would tend to resist revolution using the means at their disposal (i.e., law enforcement).
Also, it wasn't a long discourse on revolution or the proletariat; I seem to recall it was just a paragraph making the observation, but I could be mistaken, since I don't remember the context from which the quote was taken.
posted by darkstar at 5:12 PM on November 16, 2011
Also, it wasn't a long discourse on revolution or the proletariat; I seem to recall it was just a paragraph making the observation, but I could be mistaken, since I don't remember the context from which the quote was taken.
posted by darkstar at 5:12 PM on November 16, 2011
« Older What can I read about Shanghai in the 1930s? | You keep saying matches and I'll keep saying... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by darkstar at 3:06 PM on November 15, 2011