‘Challenging Authority’ '富有挑战性的权威'
By Stephen Lendman -由Stephen lendman - RINF rinf | Frances Fox Piven is a Canadian-born Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY). |弗朗西斯福克斯派文是一个出生在加拿大的教授，政治学和社会学在研究生中心，纽约市立大学（纽约市立大学） 。 Her career is long and distinguished.她的职业生涯是漫长而杰出的。 She’s the recipient of numerous awards, has combined scholarship with activism, and is the author of many important books.她的收件人获奖无数，已联合奖学金与积极性，是作者的许多重要书籍。 Most notable is her 1971 classic “Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare.” It’sa landmark historical and theoretical analysis of how welfare policy is used to control the poor and working class.最显着的是她71年的经典“规管穷人：职能的公共福利。 ”这是具有里程碑意义的历史和理论分析如何福利政策是用来控制穷人和工人阶级。
A more recent book is her 2006-published “Challenging Authority” and subject of this review.更近期的书是她2006年出版的“挑战权威”和议题进行这项检讨。 It’s about how social movements can be pivotal forces for change because ordinary people in enough numbers have enormous political clout.它的有关如何社会运动可以举足轻重的力量变化的影响，因为一般人在足够数量巨大的政治影响力。 Abolitionists, labor movements and civil rights activists proved it.赞成废除死刑，工人运动和民权活跃分子证明了这一点。 Piven examines their collective actions plus one other in the four examples she chose - the American Revolution.派文审查他们的集体行动，加一在其他四个例子，她选择-美国革命。
Piven’s book is succinct and masterful.派文的书是简洁和masterful 。 Howard Zinn calls it a “brilliant analysis of the interplay between popular protest and electoral politics.” Canadian Professor Leo Panitch says the book is “theoretically profound, yet immensely readable,” and sociologist and social movements expert Susan Eckstein describes the book as “quintessentially Piven-esque.” It “eloquently (shows) how ordinary people….have taken it upon themselves to correct injustices.”霍华德zinn要求它是“辉煌的分析之间的相互作用，受欢迎的抗议和选举政治。 ”加拿大教授利奥panitch说，这本书是“从理论上深刻，但巨大的可读性， ”和社会学家和社会运动专家苏珊eckstein介绍了这本书作为“典型派文29 “ ， ”雄辩地（显示）如何普通百姓… … 。采取了它自己，以正确的不公正“ 。
Piven’s theme is powerfully relevant at a perilous time in our history.派文的主题是有力的有关在一个危险的时间在我们的历史。 The nation is at war on two fronts, a third one looms, constitutional protections have eroded, social services erased, the country is militarized, dissent repressed, and the government is empowered to crush freedom and defend privilege at the expense of beneficial social change it won’t tolerate.国家现在处于战争状态两方面，第三个1织机，宪法保护有侵蚀，社会服务抹去，该国是军事化，压制不同政见，和政府赋予的权力，粉碎的自由和捍卫特权，牺牲了有益的社会改变它绝不会容忍。
Introduction导言
In light of the current situation, Piven’s introductory Thomas Jefferson quote is relevant.鉴于目前的形势下，派文的介绍托马斯杰弗逊是引述有关。 It was his response to the repressive 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.这是他回应的镇压1798年的外国人及煽动叛乱的行为。 He wrote: “A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles.” Disruptive social actions have done it in the past, and Piven puts it this way: “ordinary people (have) power….when they rise up in anger and hope, defy the rules….disrupt (state) institutions….propel new issues to the center of political debate….(and force) political leaders (to) stem voter defections by proferring reforms.他写道： “有点耐心，我们会看到统治巫婆，通过以上的，他们阐述了解散，和人民群众，恢复其真实的视线，恢复其政府的真正原则” 。破坏性的社会行动做了它在过去的，并派文提出这样说： “一般人（有）的权力… ，当他们站起来，在愤怒和希望，藐视规则… … 。破坏（国家）机构… … 。推进新问题，该中心的政治辩论… … 。 （和部队）政治领导人（ ）干选民叛逃由proferring改革。 These are the conditions that produce (America’s) democratic moments.”这些都是条件，生产（美国的）民主的时刻“ 。
Electoral participation alone won’t do it.参加选举，单是不能这样做。 “In the real American political world, numerous obstacles” remain - structural, legal and practical. “在现实中美国的政治世界，无数的障碍”仍然是-结构，法律和实际。 Despite liberalization of the process through the years, “large numbers of ostensibly eligible voters” are effectively disenfranchised.尽管自由化的过程中经过多年的“ ，大量的表面上合资格的选民”是有效剥夺了。 Former restrictive laws are gone, but new schemes replaced them - intimidation, misinformation, electoral fraud, and the corrupting power of money in a nation beholden to capital at the expense of the greater good.前限制性的法律不见了，但新的计划，取代他们-恐吓，误导，选举舞弊，以及腐蚀的权力，金钱，在一个民族的依赖资本不惜牺牲更大的利益。
Piven cites more as well:派文更多的濒危物种贸易公约，以及：
– the power of incumbency, -权力的在职人员，
– the two-party system that shuts out independent and minority interests, -两党制度，关闭独立及少数股东权益，
– the construct of the law that empowers the powerful, -构建法律授权强大，
– the revolving door between business and government, -旋转门之间的商业和政府，
– the corrupted dominant media, -损坏的主导媒体，
– the lack of accountability to voters, -缺乏问责选民，
– arbitrary redistricting for political advantage, -任意r edistricting为政治优势，
– believing markets work best so let them, -相信市场的工作，最好让他们，
– disdaining the harm they cause, -d isdaining的伤害，他们的事业，
– feeling interfering with market excess is “moral trespass,” -感觉干预市场的过剩是“道德侵入”
– sacrificing democracy in the pursuit of profit, -牺牲民主，在追求利润，
– and it all turning the public away from a process they no longer trust. -这一切，把市民远离一个过程，他们不再信任。
It shows in declining voter turnout with half or less of the electorate showing up at the polls and many without conviction.它表明在下降，选民投票率的一半或更少的选民显示，在调查和许多没有被定罪。
Post-WW II, “most political scientists viewed American democracy with a self-satisfied complacency.” It wasn’t perfect, but it was the best possible at the time.后第二次世界大战， “大多数政治科学家认为，美国的民主与自我满意自满。 ”这不是完美的，但它是最好的可能的时间。 Two decades later, system imperfections were more apparent, and more recently political science professor Robert Dahl said our system is “among the most opaque, complex, confusing, and difficult to understand” to show how badly we fare compared to other democracies.二十年后，系统不完善，被更加明显，以及最近的政治学教授罗伯特达尔说，我们的制度是“其中最不透明，复杂，混乱，很难理解” ，以显示如何严重，我们的票价相比，其他的民主政体。
Inequalities are extreme and growing, and Piven calls it “pernicious.” It breeds “patterns of domination and subservience (and) undermines democratic capabilities.” She quotes political analyst Kevin Phillips saying Washington is “the leading interest-group bazaar of the Western World,” and economist Paul Krugman calling our political system “utterly and perhaps irrevocably corrupted.”不平等是极端的和不断增长，派文称之为“恶毒”品种“模式的统治和subservience （和）破坏民主的能力” 。她的政治行情分析师Kevin菲利普斯说，华盛顿是“领导的利益集团坊的西方世界“经济学家保罗克鲁格曼，要求我们的政治制度”完全和不可逆转的损坏，或许“ 。
Bad as it now is, Piven says democracy “never worked well in the United States.” Citing the 19th century, she notes how it “was stamped and molded by intense religious and ethnic allegiances (that in turn created a culture of) political parties (at all levels) steeped in patronage.” It was at a time corporate power grew and began to gain advantages that are now commonplace and harmful to the public interest.坏的，因为它现在是，民主派文说， “从来没有运作良好，在美国的”引述十九世纪，她指出，如何“盖章和成型激烈的宗教和民族忠诚（这反过来又创造了文化）政党（在所有各级）沉浸在使用量。 “这是在一个时间，公司权力的增长，并开始取得优势，现在司空见惯的和有害的，以公众利益。
Nonetheless, egalitarian reform is possible, and Piven recounts four crucial times when it showed up.然而，平均主义的改革是可能的，并且派文重新四个关键的时候出现。 Each time, protest movements achieved it by influencing American politics, “if only temporarily.” It’s no surprise that power “flows to those who have more of the things and attributes valued in social life.” But times emerge when “workers or peasants or rioters exercise power,” it’s “distinctive….disruptive or interdependent,” and it happens when conditions are right for it to be actualized.每一次，抗议运动达到它的影响美国政治， “如果只是暂时的， ”这是毫不奇怪的力量“ ，流向这些谁拥有更多的东西和属性的价值在社会生活中” ，但时代出现时， “工人或农民或暴徒行使权力， “它的”独特的… … 。干扰或相互依存的， “它发生时的条件是正确的，为它成为现实。
Piven states the “central question” of her book: “given the power inequalities (in America)” and how it corrupts the political process, “how does egalitarian reform ever occur” at all?派文国的“核心问题” ，她的书： “由于权力的不平等现象（在美国） ”以及它如何腐化，政治进程， “如何平等的改革以往任何时候都发生”在所有？ It’s only been at times of “disruptive protest movements” with their “distinctive kind of power” Piven calls “disruptive power.”它的唯一一直处于时代的“破坏性的抗议运动”与“独特的种权力”派文呼吁“破坏性力量” 。
The Nature of Disruptive Power性质的破坏性的权力
First a definition of power in the abstract.首先定义的权力，在抽象的。 Piven notes the “widely held thesis that (it’s) based on control of wealth and force” - big landowners over peasants, rich over poor, armies over civilians, and so forth.派文指出， “广泛举行的论断（它的）的基础上控制的财富和力量” -大的地主超过农民，丰富的超过穷人，两军平民，等等。 However, it’s not always the case, and “history is dotted” with examples of “people without wealth or coercive resources….exercis(ing) power, at least for a time.”不过，它的情况并非总是如此， “历史是点”的例子， “人没有财富，或胁迫性的资源… … 。 exercis （荷兰）的权力，至少在一段时间” 。
She notes how societies organize through cooperation and interdependence, but disparate interests at times conflict.她指出，如何社团组织，通过合作和相互依存的，但不相干的利益，在时代的冲突。 While workers depend on management for jobs, managers, in turn, need a work force to produce.而工人的依赖于管理职位，经理，在转，需要一个工作队，生产。 If labor is withheld, production halts.如果劳动是隐瞒，生产停止。 Both sides have leverage.双方的杠杆作用。 Either one can activate it.其一，可以激活它。 Piven calls the “activation of interdependent power ‘disruption.’ ” It’sa power strategy based on “withdrawing cooperation in social relations.” Protest movements “mobilize disruptive power.” They achieve leverage by breaking down “institutionally regulated cooperation” as in strikes, boycotts or riots.派文呼吁“激活相互依存的权力'的干扰” 。它的权力策略的基础上“退出合作，在社会关系”的抗议运动“ ，动员破坏性的权力， ”他们实现杠杆，打破“从制度上规管合作”作为在罢工，抵制或暴乱。
At these times, ordinary people (potentially) have enormous power - “their ability to disrupt institutionalized cooperation that depends on their continuing contributions.” Key is that great reforms in history have been “responses to the threatened (or use of) disruptive power.” In the US, it achieved representative government, ending slavery, the right to organize, social welfare and civil rights.在这些时候，一般人（可能）有巨大的力量-“他们的能力，破坏制度化的合作，取决于其持续的贡献。 ”关键是伟大的改革，在历史上已“的反应，威胁（或使用）的破坏性的权力。 “在美国，它实现了有代表性的政府，结束了奴隶制，组织权，社会福利和公民权利。 Grassroots bottom-up “disruptive power” produced them.基层自下而上“的破坏性的力量”制作出来的一样。
But it takes more than marches, rallies, slogans, shouting or even violence.但以上的游行，集会，标语，呼喊，甚至暴力。 It’s also too simplistic to think power from below is there for the taking.它也过于简单，认为权力来自下面是有，为考虑。 Actualizing power depends on the ability to withhold cooperation. actualizing权力取决于能否扣压合作。 But it’s not “actionable” until certain problems are solved:但它不是“可采取行动” ，直到某些问题得到解决：
– recognizing interdependence and the potential power from below such as workers withholding their labor or wives their domestic services; -认识到相互依存和潜在的权力来自下面，如工人扣压他们的劳动或妻子，其国内服务;
– the necessity of people breaking rules; rules are power strategies; they allow some people to dominate others, establish property rights, become law, and so forth; -必要性的人打破规则;规则的权力战略;它们允许一些人主宰别人，建立产权，成为法律，等等;
– individuals must coordinate their disruptive power for strategic advantage; -个人必须协调其破坏性的力量，为战略优势;
– they must overcome constraints of an entire matrix of social relations; examples are the influence of family ties or the threat of religious excommunication; -他们必须克服的制约整个矩阵的社会关系;的例子是影响家庭关系或威胁使用宗教绝罚;
– disruptive power must be sustained, cooperation withheld, and be able to withstand whatever reprisals occur; and -破坏性的权力，必须持续下去，不予合作，并能承受什么报复的发生;
– the determination to stay the course in the wake of threats and uncertainty - employers who may hire scabs or relocate their plants and facilities. -决心留下来的过程中，在之后的威胁和不确定性-雇主谁可以雇用sc abs或搬迁，他们的工厂和设施。
New strategies aren’t invented for each challenge.新的战略，不是发明为每个挑战。 They’re “embedded in memory or culture, in a language of resistance (and) become a ‘repertoire’ (of a) specific constellation of strategies to actualize interdependent power.” New repertoires from below are developed in response to social and economic change.他们正在“嵌入式记忆体或文化，在一种语言的阻力（和）变成'汇辑』 （一）具体星座的战略actualize相互依存的权力。 ”新曲目从下面是发达国家在回应社会和经济变化。 They become “forged in a political process of action and reaction.” Popular struggles change over time, so, for example, food riots became rare and strike actions typical.他们变成了“伪造的，在一个政治进程的行动和反应” 。受欢迎的斗争，随着时间改变，因此，举例来说，粮食暴动，成为罕见的罢工行动的典型。 However, they’re now threatened with weakened labor protections, the growth of temporary workers, and the ability of employers to operate anywhere in the world under WTO rules.不过，他们现在正在威胁减弱，劳动保护，生长的临时员工，以及有能力的雇主经营在世界上任何地方，根据世贸组织的规则。
Slowly over time, new repertoires emerge to respond to conditions of the times.慢慢随着时间的推移，新的曲目出现回应的时代条件。 Lessons are learned from defeat, anger and defiance builds, and creative imagination invents new solutions to old problems.教训是从失败的教训，愤怒和蔑视，建立，和创造性的想象力发明新的解决办法老问题。
The Mob and the State - Disruptive Power and the Construction of American Electoral-Representative Arrangements暴徒和国家-破坏性的权力和建设美国的选举代表性的安排
Disorderly and defiant crowds or mobs figure prominently in the history of disruptive movements.无序和违抗人群或暴民的数字，突出在历史上破坏性的动作。 They played an important role in the Revolutionary War period and years leading up to it.他们发挥了重要作用，在革命战争时期和年领导了它。 American elites allied with mobs because they grew uneasy about British rule and developed radical ideas about the right of the colonies to self-government.美国的精英，专职与暴徒，因为他们成长感到不安，英国的管治和发展激进思想的权利，该殖民地自治政府。 Without mob support, the war with England couldn’t have been won.没有暴民的支持，战争与英格兰不能已韩元。 They provided the troops who fought it.他们所提供的部队谁打了它。
Most colonists were from England, and by the mid-1700s numbered around 1.6 million.最殖民者分别来自英格兰，和中编号为1700左右， 160万人。 Most had egalitarian ideas and were ordinary people - artisans, apprentices, sailors, laborers, urban poor, farmers, bonded servants, and so forth.最有教无类的思想和被普通百姓-工匠，学徒，水手，劳动者，城市贫民，农民，保税公务员，等等。 They also relied on mob action for results.他们还依赖于暴民行动的结果。
In the pre-revolutionary period, “riots and tumults” were commonplace.在会前革命时期， “暴乱和tumults ”司空见惯。 Bacon’s 1676 Rebellion of discontented frontiersmen and slaves was the first one of note.培根1676年叛乱的不满， frontiersmen和奴隶是第一个值得注意的。 In the next 100 years, another 18 uprisings erupted (according to Howard Zinn) against colonial governments along with six black rebellions and 40 riots.在未来的一百年，另有18起义爆发（根据霍华德zinn ）反对殖民统治的政府，随着六黑色的反叛和40暴乱。
Tensions grew as the years passed.紧张局势的增长随着岁月的通过。 They challenged Britain and colonial elites.他们质疑，英国和殖民地的精英。 Inequalities also increased, and they spawned protests against them.不平等现象也有所增加，和他们产生了对他们的抗议。 One study cited 150 riots in cities and rural areas between 1765 and 1769.一项研究列举150暴动在城市和农村地区之间的1765年和1769年。 In addition, merchants and landowners grew angry with the Crown.此外，商人和地主增长愤怒与冠。 In 1763, it sent a standing army to the colonies, introduced new taxes, made demands to billet British troops and to curb colonial assemblies’ power.在1763年，它发出的常备军，以殖民地，介绍了新税种，作出要求，钢坯，英国军队和遏止殖民地议会的权力。 It introduced the Sugar Act, Tea Act and a new Stamp Act.它介绍了糖法，茶法和新邮票的行为。 Colonists resisted and mob action was crucial.殖民者的抵制和暴民的行动是至关重要的。
They made Stamp Act enforcement impossible and dumped tea into more than one harbor to prove it, besides the notable December 16, 1773 Boston action.他们提出的印花税法的执法不可能弃茶到一个以上的港口，以证明这一点，除了显着1773年12月16日波士顿的行动。 Historian Edward Countryman called it the “final rupture” leading up to war.历史学家爱德华乡下人称之为“最后破裂”导致战争。 Those who took up arms wanted popular democracy, and it affected the post-revolutionary drafting of state constitutions.这些谁拿起武器，想人民民主，它影响了后革命的起草国家宪法。 They reflected “egalitarian and libertarian ideas that were spreading up and down the eastern seaboard.” They wanted popular liberty and drafted laws that limited executive powers, established unicameral legislatures or at least powerful lower houses, short terms of office to force elected officials to face voters more often, and essentially make government accountable to the people.它们反映了“平等和自由的想法蔓延向上和向下东海岸。 ”他们希望受欢迎的自由和起草的法律，有限的行政权力，建立了院的立法机关，或至少强大的低房子，短期内的办公室，迫使民选官员要面对选民更经常地，基本上是使政府向人民负责。
It alarmed the nation’s elites who, in turn, precipitated efforts to reform the new state constitutions and reign in their democratic excesses.它感到震惊全国的精英谁，在反过来，沉淀的改革努力，这个新国家的宪法和统治，在他们的民主过度。 Defeating England unleashed electorate demands, and they showed up in popular rebellions.战胜英格兰发动选民的要求，显示了他们在流行的反叛。 They were fueled by postwar depression, debt, and legislative imposition of poll and property taxes on farmers.他们刺激了战后的抑郁症，债务和立法施加调查和物业税对农民的。 They petitioned for relief, got none, so armed mobs closed the courts to stop debtor suits and stave off foreclosure on their farms.他们请愿，救济，没有得到，所以武装暴徒封闭，法院停止债务人的诉讼和缓解赎回权问题上他们的农场。 Rebellions spread across New England with Daniel Shays leading the most famous one in 1786 and 1787.反叛遍布新英格兰与Daniel shays领导最有名的一在1786年和1787年。 The rebels were dispersed, but they got amnesty, tax relief, and most imprisoned debtors were released.叛军被分散，但他们得到大赦，税项宽免，以及最被监禁的债务人被释放。
Elites were alarmed, excess democracy had to be curbed, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention became the way to do it.精英均感到震惊，过剩的民主要抑制，和1787年的宪法，成为公约的方式去做。 There were other problems as well.还有其他问题。 The Articles of Confederation were unwieldy, had to be replaced, and a new document was needed that would last into “remote futurity” to serve the interests of “the (only) people” who mattered.文章邦联被笨重，不得不更换，和一个新的文件，需要将持续到“远程未来”的利益服务“ （只）的人”谁重要的。 They were established white male property owning delegates and members of state conventions who rammed the ratification process through in the face of a largely indifferent and uncomprehending populace left out entirely.他们建立了白人男性的财产拥有代表和委员的国家公约谁撞的批准进程，通过在面对一个主要漠不关心， uncomprehending民众离开完全。
The challenge was to offer democratic concessions, create an appearance of democracy, but frame a document for rich property owners in charge of the process for their own self-interest.所面临的挑战是提供民主的优惠，创造一个民主的外观，但框架一份文件，供丰富的物业业主，负责该进程，为自身利益。 Only the privileged could vote.只有特权可以投票。 Women, blacks, Indians and children couldn’t and most who qualified didn’t bother.妇女，黑人，印度人和儿童不能和谁最有资格并没有理会。 The process, and what it produced, showed operatively democracy is little more than fantasy, but it wasn’t designed to appear that way.这个过程中，以及它的产生，表明手术民主是多一点的幻想，但它的设计不出现这样的。
The “people” got to elect lower house members, who, in turn, elected senators to the upper chamber. “人”到了选出下议院议员，谁，在反过来，当选为参议员，到上厅举行会议。 The system stayed that way until the 17th Amendment (ratified in 1913) allowed voters in each state to elect representatives to both Houses of Congress.该系统下榻的这种方式，直到第十七修正案（批准于1913年）允许选民在每个国家选出代表向美国国会参众两院。
Also proposed was a chief executive, a national judiciary with a Supreme Court, and provisions for admitting new states with republican governments.还提议是一个行政长官，一个国家的司法机构与最高法院，并规定，吸纳新的国家与共和党政府。 In addition, the Constitution had procedures for amendments and much more, including terms of office and staggered elections to prevent too many officials being unseated at the same time.此外，该宪法修正案的程序和更为，包括条款办公室和交错选举，以防止太多的官员正在该处在同一时间内。 In the end, the final product was a bundle of compromises, yielded little of substance to “the people,” and assured power was left to the powerful.在年底，最终产品是捆绑的妥协，取得了很少的实质“人” ，和有保证的权力留给了强大的。
The Constitution’s opening words were “We the people,” but, in fact, they were nowhere in sight.宪法的开放的话， “我们的人” ，但事实上，他们是遥遥无期。 The framers “engineered a conservative counter-revolution….whose purpose….was to thwart the will of the people in whose will they acted.” Government under the new document was created to fill the vacuum created by the defeat of Great Britain.制定“工程是一个保守的反革命… … 。其目的… … 。是为了阻挠人民的意志，在其将他们采取行动。 ”政府根据新的创建文档，以填补真空所造成的失败，伟大的英国。 It restored the essential British commercial and financial system and put it under new management.它恢复了至关重要的英国商业和金融制度，并根据新的管理。 Monarchal wrappings were removed, everything changed, and yet everything, in fact, stayed the same. monarchal包装纸被拆除，一切都改变，但一切，事实上，在下榻的相同。 Rarely, if ever, was there so much rebellion with so little cause, and with so little to show for it.很少，如果，有那么多的叛乱与这么少的原因，与这么少，以显示它。
Consider the Constitution’s crowing achievement, at least so we’re told - the Bill of Rights.考虑宪法的拥挤的成就，至少所以我们说-人权法案。 Adopting them made the difference to get 13 states to ratify the document and make it law.通过他们提出的差异得到13个国家的批准文件，并使它的法律。 Their protections weren’t for “the people.” They were for the privileged who wanted:他们的保护，没有“人民” 。他们为特权谁通缉：
– prohibitions against quartering troops in their property; -禁止设营部队在他们的财产;
– unreasonable searches and seizures there as well; -不合理的搜查和扣押以及有;
– the right to have state militias protect them; -有权以国家的民兵保护他们;
– the right to bear arms, but not the way the Second Amendment is today interpreted; -有权携带武器，但不是这样的第二项修订是今天的解释;
– - the rights of free speech, the press, religion, assembly and petition - largely for the monied and propertied interests; --的权利，自由言论，新闻，宗教，集会和请愿书-主要是为m o n ied和pr o pertied利益;
– due process of law with speedy public trials; and -法律正当程序与迅速的公开审判;
– various other provisions worked out through compromise; two additional amendments were proposed but rejected; Jefferson and Madison wanted them; Adams and Hamilton were opposed; they would have banned monopolies and standing armies; in the end, the first 10 alone were adopted; we never saw what difference the other two might have made. -其他各项工作的规定，通过妥协;两个额外的修订建议，但拒绝;杰斐逊和麦迪逊希望他们;亚当斯和汉密尔顿则反对;便禁止垄断和常备军;在年底，前1 0个单独获得通过;我们从来没有看到有什么分别其他两个可能会作出。
Piven’s main point isn’t that “constitution-making” limited “popular power.” It’s that “disruptive power challenges (of the time) could not be (entirely) ignored….” The founders established a republican government, popular liberties (to a degree) were conceded, and the idea (if not the reality) of the “consent of the governed” became a fundamental principle of political thought.派文的主要点是不是“制定宪法”有限“受欢迎的权力， ”这是“破坏性的权力的挑战（的时间）不能（完全）忽略了… … ”的创始人建立了一个共和党政府，受欢迎的自由（学位）的让步，和想法（如果不是现实） “的同意，治理”成为一个基本原则，思想政治工作。
Further, in subsequent decades, suffrage expanded, taxpaying requirements replaced property ones, and these, too, were gradually eliminated.此外，在随后的几十年来，普选的扩大，纳税人要求更换物业，而这些，也被逐步淘汰。 By the 1830s, most white men had the right to vote.由1830年代，大多数白人男子有投票权。 It’s unlikely these changes would have happened under British rule.它的这些变化不大可能会发生在英国统治下。 So while was no disagreement on how government was to be run, (in John Adams’ words, by “the rich, the well born, and the able,”) the mob, according to Piven, “played a large if convoluted role in the construction of a new state with at least some of the elemental features of democracy.”因此，虽然是没有异议就如何，政府是要而言， （在约翰亚当斯换句话说， “富者，以及出生，并能” ）暴徒，根据派文， “发挥了大，如果在错综复杂的作用建造一个新的国家至少有一些元素的特点民主“ 。
Dissensus Politics, or the Interaction of Disruptive Challenges with Electoral Politics - The Case of the Abolitionist Movement dissensus政治，或相互作用的破坏性挑战与选举政治-案件废除死刑的运动
Piven defines “dissensus” as a tug of war between the need for political leaders to “mobilize majorities” and “disruptive challengers work(ing) to fragment them.” She also calls this “the key to understanding” disruptive protest power over public policy decisions.派文界定了“ dissensus ： ”作为一个拔河的需要之间的政治领袖“调动多数”和“破坏性的挑战者工作（荷兰）片段。 ”她还称这是“关键的理解”破坏性的抗议权，公共政策的决定。 Political coalitions are at times fragile and vulnerable.政治联盟，都是在时代的脆弱和易受伤害。 When opposition to consensus surfaces and builds, it can be fractious, disruptive, and an “opening (to get) policy concessions on the (breakaway) movement’s issues.”当反对的共识面，并建立，可以fractious ，破坏性的，和一个“开放（获得）的政策优惠，对（分裂）运动的问题” 。
Case in point - “Abolitionism.” By one estimate, free blacks numbered around 59,000 in 1790.典型的例子-“废除主义” ，根据一项估计，自由的黑人人数在5 .9万左右， 1 790。 By the start of the Civil War, the total had increased eightfold to about 488,000.由开始的内战，共增加了八倍至约48.8万。 In the run-up the the Revolutionary War, slavery issues were contentious with hints early on about what later might develop.在运行了革命战争年代，奴隶制问题的争议与暗示，早期就什么稍后可能发展。
In spite of owning slaves himself, Jefferson’s first Declaration of Independence draft included grievances against the Crown’s involvement in trafficking.尽管如此，拥有自己的奴隶，杰弗逊的第一独立宣言草案包括怨气，针对官方的参与，在贩毒活动。 Southern representatives took issue, the clause was dropped, and to build postwar consensus the South had to be reassured that their slave system would remain intact.南部代表了问题，该条款是下降，并建立了战后的共识，南方，以保证他们的奴隶制度将维持不变。
It led to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution saying that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of allocating congressional representation.它导致了第1条第2款，第3条宪法说，奴隶会被算作三五分之四的人的目的，分配国会的代表性。 According to historian Gary Wills: For southern states, this issue was “a nonnegotiable condition for their joining the Union” and with it they got “a large and domineering representation in Congress.”据历史学家程介南遗嘱：南部各州，这个问题是“非流通条件，为他们加入联盟”和与它得到的“大和盛气凌人的代表在国会” 。
Consider some other relevant facts:考虑到一些其他相关的事实：
– large slave owners had disproportionate power; they controlled state legislatures and selected senators; -大奴隶业主有非同一般的权力，他们控制的国家立法机关和选定的参议员;
– most American presidents until the Civil War were southerners and slaveholders (including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson); -大多数美国总统，直到内战被南方人和奴隶主（包括华盛顿，杰弗逊，麦迪逊，门罗和杰克逊） ;
– the first US 1790 census reported 757,000 blacks or nearly one-fifth of the total four million population; -美国第一1 790年的人口普查报告7 57000黑人或近五分之一的总人口4 00.0万;
– in 1807, Congress outlawed the importation of African slaves after 1808, yet trafficking illegally brought in another 250,000 until 1860; -在1 807年，国会禁止进口非洲奴隶后， 1 808年，但非法贩运所带来的在另一2 50000，直至1 860年;
– enacted slavery provisions were for the North as well as the South; only Pennsylvania and the New England states outlawed the practice; in 1787, most states were slave states, and the new Constitution protected their holdings; -颁布了奴隶制的规定，为北方以及南方，只有宾夕法尼亚州和新英格兰国家取缔的做法;在1 787年，大多数国家都是奴隶的国家，新宪法保护其控股;
– intersectional planter, commercial, banking and manufacturing interests tied the North and South together; slavery and cotton enriched the South, production boomed, and northern manufacturing also benefitted; -交互播种机，商业，银行业和制造业的利益捆绑北方和南方一起;奴役和棉花，丰富了南，生产兴旺，和北部的制造业也受惠;
– the human bondage system affected radical abolitionists; they knew that ending slavery meant “overturning” the Constitution; -人类的奴役制度，受影响的激进的赞成废除死刑;他们知道结束奴隶制的意思是“推翻”宪法;
– to accommodate consensus politics, compromise was preferable to conflict; to protect the South from the majority nonslave North, “balanced” admission of new slave and free states was agreed on as well as a similar arrangement for presidential and vice-presidential tickets; -以容纳共识政治，妥协是可取的冲突;保护南方大部分n onslave北， “平衡”接纳新奴隶和自由的国家同意对以及一个类似的安排，为总统和副总统门票;
– nonetheless, compromises were fragile and sectional conflicts arose; one instance was over the Mexican War, annexation of Texas, and disposition of 650,000 square miles of new territory; neither side was satisfied even though compromise was achievable on matters of tariffs, centralized banking, internal improvements, and free western land. -然而，妥协是脆弱的和断面发生冲突;之一，例如已超过墨西哥战争，吞并得克萨斯州，和处置6 5.0万平方英里的新的版图;既不方对此感到满意，即使妥协是可以实现的事项关税，集中银行，内部改进，和西方自由的土地。
Given the enormous costs of dissolution, why weren’t both sides committed to preventing it?由于巨大的成本，解散，为什么没有双方致力于防止它呢？ Piven cites “the strident and disruptive abolitionist campaign with its demands for immediate emancipation.派文濒危物种贸易公约“刺耳和破坏性废除死刑的运动，要求其立即解放。 Abolitionism fractured….the sectional accord” that held disparate elements together - until 1860.废除主义裂缝… … 。断面协议“举行不相干的元素一起-直到1 860年。
Who were the abolitionists?谁都是赞成废除死刑？ According to Howard Zinn, they were “editors, orators, run-away slaves, free Negro militants, and gun-toting preachers.” Together they “shaped….the movement and contributed to its disruptive power.” Its effects fractured intersectional parties, divided the nation, and led to the Civil War and legal emancipation.根据霍华德zinn ，他们是“编辑，演讲，运行离家出走的奴隶，自由黑人激进份子，和枪toting传教士” 。在一起，他们“字形… … 。运动，并有助于其破坏性的力量。 ”其影响裂缝交互缔约方，分为民族，并导致内战和法律的解放。
“Evangelical revivalists” were committed to reform. “福音事工促进会， revivalists ”致力于改革。 They believed slavery was sinful, and would accept nothing less than ending it.他们认为，奴隶制是罪孽深重，并会接受任何少于结束。 In 1831, William Lloyd Garrison founded The Liberator.在1831年，威廉劳埃德驻军成立了解放者。 It became the voice of militant abolitionism.它成为的声音，好战的废除主义。 “Garrison was no gradualist.” He refused compromise and demanded “immediate and unconditional emancipation.” “驻军是没有渐进式” ，他拒绝妥协，并要求“立即和无条件地解放” 。
Others were equally committed.其他人同样承诺。 They formed antislavery associations, edited papers, spoke publicly, and by 1841 claimed 200,000 members.他们形成了antislavery协会，编辑文件，以公开，由1841年声称200000成员。 Religious passion and enlightenment fervor spread throughout the North.宗教激情和启示的热潮，遍布北方。 In the South, it was opposed by “Southern rights” societies that used the Bible to claim “slavery fulfilled God’s purposes.” It produced schisms and strife, got Garrison paraded through Boston with a rope around his neck, and vigilante welcoming committees awaited northern abolitionists coming south.在南方，这是反对“南权利”的社会，用圣经要求“奴役履行上帝的用途。 ”它产生的分裂和内乱，得到驻军游行，通过波士顿与一条绳子靠近他的脖子，和治安欢迎委员会期待已久的北部赞成废除死刑南下。
Nonetheless, abolitionism grew, congressional antislavery petitions mounted, Congress claimed no authority to act, and thousands of slaves took matters into their own hands.然而，废除主义上升，国会请愿antislavery展开，国会声称，没有权力的行为，成千上万的奴隶了事项掌握在自己手中。 They resisted by “evasion, sabotage, suicide, or running away.” There were also slave revolts - in 1800 in a march on Richmond; 1811 on a plantation near New Orleans; 1817 and 1818 in Florida; and Nat Turner and 70 other slaves in Virginia “kill(ing) all whites” and sparing no one.他们抵制“逃税行为，破坏，自杀，或离家出走” ，也有奴隶起义-在1 800年在3月就里士满; 1 811年就种植园附近的新纽奥良; 1 817年和1 818年在佛罗里达州;和N AT特纳和7 0个其他的奴隶在维吉尼亚州的“ kill （荷兰）所有白人” ，并不遗余力地之一。
Most disruptive was the Underground Railway with whites and free blacks involved.大多数破坏性的是地下铁路与白人和黑人的自由参与。 It defied federal antifugitive laws and freed tens of thousands of southern slaves.它无视联邦antifugitive法律和释放数以万计的南部的奴隶。 Abolitionist disruptions “inevitably penetrated electoral politics.” It fragmented both parties, made compromise impossible, and led to the emergence of the Republican Party.废除死刑的中断“无可避免地侵入选举政治” ，支离破碎的当事双方作出妥协，是不可能的，并导致出现了共和党党。 It opposed expanding slavery as new states entered the union, and in 1860 got Abraham Lincoln elected president.它反对扩大奴隶制为新的国家进入了联盟，并在1860年得到美国总统林肯当选总统。 His platform - containing slavery and condemning threats of disunion as treason.他的政纲-含有奴役和谴责的威胁，分裂叛国。
The South responded.南方回应。 Seven states seceded, Fort Sumpter was attacked, the Civil War began, four more slave states joined the others, and Lincoln committed to war to restore the union.七国seceded ，炮台森普特遭到攻击，内战开始，四更多的奴隶国加入了别人，林肯致力于战争，以恢复联盟。 As conflict wore on, its horrific toll drove him toward emancipation.作为解决冲突的推移，其可怕的收费开车送他对解放。 Piven notes that the “insurrectionary role of the slaves….was probably critical to his decision.” During the war, hundreds of thousands of them refused to work, deserted plantations, and crippled the Confederacy’s ability to feed itself.派文指出， “ insurrectionary作用的奴隶… … 。大概是关键，他决定”在战争期间，数以十万计的，他们拒绝工作，被遗弃的种植园，并削弱邦联的执政能力，饲料本身。 In addition, around 200,000 slaves fought with the North, and their numbers were significant in achieving victory.此外，约20.0万奴隶争取与北韩，他们的人数均显着在实现胜利。
Abolitionism grew, southern secession spurred it, and in January 1865 Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery.废除主义的增长，带动南部分裂国家，并在1865年1月国会通过了第十三修正案，禁止奴役。 Nominally, former slaves got more rights from the Fourteenth (due process and equal protection) and Fifteenth (forbidding racial discrimination in voting) Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866.名义上，以前的奴隶获得更多的权利，从第十四（适当程序和平等保护）和第十五（禁止种族歧视在表决）的修订，以及为公民权利的行为1866 。
“Abolitionists had triumphed,” they did it through electoral politics by splitting the parties, yet their victory was limited. “赞成废除死刑已获胜， ”他们这样做，是通过选举的政治分裂缔约方，但他们的胜利是有限的。 Post-emancipation, the movement “melted into the Republican Party,” southern and northern leaders became accommodative, and elites in the South “moved rapidly to restore their control over blacks.” Nonetheless, an impressive victory was won even if only marginally, and it would take another century before blacks got any of their constitutional rights.后的解放，不结盟运动“融化成，共和两党， ”南部和北部的领导人，成为宽松，和精英在南方“动议的迅速恢复他们的控制权黑人” ，但令人印象深刻的胜利，赢得即使只是轻微的，它会采取一个世纪之前，黑人得到任何他们的宪法权利。
Movements and Reform in the American Twentieth Century运动和改革，在美国二十世纪
Throughout American history, disruptive protests were common, yet rarely did any have a “big bang” effect.在整个美国历史上破坏性的抗议活动常见的，但很少有没有有一个“大爆炸”的效果。 Decades elapsed between successful abolitionism and New Deal reforms.几十年过去了之间的成功废除主义和新政改革。 In the 20th century, Piven notes that almost all important labor, civil rights and social welfare legislation got passed in just two six-year periods - 1933 - 1938 and 1963 - 1968.在20世纪，派文指出，几乎所有重要的劳动，公民权利和社会福利立法获得通过，在短短两年的6年期-1 933- 19 38和1 9 63年- 1 96 8年。 There was one exception - the 1972 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the elderly poor and people with disabilities.有一个例外-1 972年的补充保障收入（相互作用）为老人和穷人的人士，残疾人士。
Great Depression hard times spurred important reforms to provide emergency relief:大萧条的艰难岁月推动的重要改革，以提供紧急救济：
– the Civil Works Administration (CWA) for work relief; it reached 28 million people (22.2% of the population); -公务员工程管理处（ c wa）救济工作;达到2 800.0万人（ 2 2.2％的人口） ;
– overall social spending rose from 1.34% of GDP in 1932 to 5% by 1934 and showed that government works for the people when it wants to; -对社会的整体支出上升，从1 .34％ ，占国内生产总值在1 932至5 ％ ，由1 934年，并表明政府的工务，为人民，当它想;
– the 1935 Social Security Act established the framework for all future income support programs - retirement benefits, unemployment, supplemental income, subsidized housing, and all categories of “welfare;” -1 935年社会保障法确立了框架，今后所有的收入支持计划-退休福利，失业，补充收入，资助房屋，和所有类别的“福利”;
– most entitlements expanded in the 1960s - old age pensions; unemployment insurance; quadrupling the numbers of women and children receiving Aid to Dependent Children; Medicare; Medicaid; new nutritional programs, including food stamps and school lunches; federal aid to education; and inner-city development through the Model Cities Act of 1966. -最享权利扩大，在六十年代-养老金;失业保险;翻两番的数目是妇女和儿童接受援助的受供养子女;医疗保险;医疗补助;新的营养计划，包括食品邮票及学校午餐;联邦教育援助;和内蒙古-城市发展，通过示范城市的行为， 1966年。
Overall in the 1960s, social spending rose from $37 billion to $140 billion in the post-1965 decade.整体在20世纪60年代，社会支出的上升，从370亿美元到1400亿美元，在后1965年的十年。 By the mid-1970s, poverty levels were down from 20% in 1965 to 11%.由1970年代中期，贫困水平下降了20 ％ ，在1965年的11 ％ 。
Each period also saw political rights expand.每一个时期，也看到了政治权利的扩大。 Mass strikes of the early 1930s produced the landmark 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).大规模的罢工30年代初产生了划时代的1935年全国劳动关系法（ nlra ） 。 For the first time, it gave labor the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with management and provided legal protections to strike actions.为第一次，它给劳动集体谈判的权利平等的条件下与管理，并提供法律保护的罢工行动。 The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act established national minimum wages and maximum hours. 1938年公平劳动标准法设立的全国最低工资和最高工时。 These laws advanced worker rights over the next three decades.这些法律先进工作者的权利在未来三年几十年。
In 1964, civil rights actions got the Twenty-Fourth Amendment passed.在1964年，公民权利的行动得到了20 -第四修正案获得通过。 It prohibited poll taxes in federal elections, and along with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act overrode state and local franchise restrictions that were in place in the South since Reconstruction.它禁止人头税在联邦大选，而且随着1964年的民权法案和1965年的投票权利法凌驾于国家和地方的专营权，限制人，发生在南，自重建。 As Piven put it: The 1960s civil rights movement “finally won, a century later, the reforms first announced (but never gotten) in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.” In addition, the 1964 Equal Opportunity Act (antipoverty program) provided federal funds for poor communities.作为派文提出： 20世纪60年代民权运动“ ，最终赢得了，一个世纪以后，改革首先宣布， （但从来没有得到）在第十四届和第十五修正案。 ”此外， 1964年的平等机会法（扶贫计划）提供的联邦基金为贫困的社区。
Why these “big bangs” then and not at other times?为什么这些“大爆炸”的话，而不是在其他时间呢？ It’s because they were gotten during periods of “mass disruption” that mobilized “interdependent power from below….” Veterans marched on Washington, rent strikes spread, people commandeered food, labor walkouts occurred, demonstrations demanded relief, so Roosevelt had to act.它的，因为他们得到了期间的“地下混乱”动员“相互依存的权力从下面… … ” 。退伍军人游行在华盛顿，租金罢工蔓延的势头，人民commandeered食品，发生的劳动罢工，示威，要求救济，因此，罗斯福曾采取行动。 It wasn’t out of benevolence, and his 1932 platform showed it.这是不是出于善，和他的1932平台，表明它。 It contained the same old 1920s planks that kept Republicans in power throughout the decade.它载有相同的旧木板上世纪20年代一直在共和党的权力，在整个十年。 Conditions now changed, disruptive protests demanded help, echoes of the 1917 Russian Revolution were still audible, so Roosevelt acted to save capitalism.现在条件改变，破坏性的抗议活动，要求帮助，回声1917年俄国革命仍在发声，所以罗斯福总统采取行动，挽救资本主义。 He gave a little to save a lot for the privileged who understood the fragility of their position.他给小节省了很多的特权谁理解的脆弱他们的立场。
The 1960s saw other disruptive protests - this time by a massive black insurgency on one side against white southern “resistance” on the other. 20世纪60年代看到其他破坏性的抗议-这个时候由一个庞大的黑色叛乱对一方对白色南部的“抵抗”对其他。 It came to a head in the mid-1960s in the form of civil disobedience.它来到一个头部在六十年代中期，在形式的公民抗命。 It began in the South, spread across the country, resulted in harsh police crackdowns, greater disruptive riots, and they forced the federal government to intervene.它开始在南部地区，传遍整个国家，导致在恶劣的警察镇压，破坏性更大的暴乱，他们被迫联邦政府干预。 Turbulence, social unrest, and a climate of general crisis produced reforms to diffuse the disorder of the times.动荡，社会不安，以及气候的一般危机产生的改革，以弥漫性紊乱的时代。
Electoral forces also played a role the way Piven explains.选举势力也发挥了作用的方式派文解释说。 She calls the “interplay between electoral shifts and political leaders….the most influential explanation of twentieth-century policy change.” Big bangs were “big electoral” ones.她呼吁“之间的相互作用，选举的变化和政治领袖… … 。最具影响力的解释二十世纪的政策改变。 ”大爆炸“大选举” 。 Two credible hypotheses explain how they occur:有两个可信的假说，解释他们如何发生的：
– the “mobilization” thesis (during hard times) raising the level of voter turnout; new voters are key; they provide impetus for realignment under this theory; and -“动员”的论文（在艰难的时刻）水平的提高投票率;新登记选民是关键;它们提供动力的调整下，这一理论;
– the “conversion” thesis (also during hard times) detaching voters from their traditional Republican Party affiliation; here shifting loyalties explain it. -“转换”的论文（也就是在艰难的时刻）分离的选民从他们的传统共和党的党派;这里转移的忠诚解释。
Either way, political leaders respond, strive to win and/or hold their support, and they enacted social relief measures in the 1930s and 1960s.无论采用哪种方式，政治领袖的回应，争取及/或举行他们的支持，和他们制定的社会救济措施，在1930年代和1960年代。
More is in play as well as voters by themselves have little influence over policy.更重要的是在发挥以及为选民本身没有多大的影响力的政策。 In addition, politicians need broad majorities, and building them takes avoiding conflict, building consensus and striking familiar appeals for prosperity, God, country and family.此外，政界人士需要广泛的多数，并建立他们需要避免冲突，建立共识和打击熟悉的呼吁，繁荣，上帝，国家和家庭。 As a result, electoral shifts alone don’t automatically produce bold new initiatives.因此，选举的变化，单不自动产生新的大胆举措。 In fact, they rarely do unless special times produce extraordinary responses.事实上，他们很少这样做，除非特殊的时代产生非同寻常的反应。 In the 1930s and 1960s, disruptive protests and potential institutional disorder got Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson to act quite differently than they would have had conditions been normal.在20世纪30年代和20世纪60年代，破坏性的抗议活动和潜在的体制障碍得到罗斯福和约翰逊行事相当不同，比他们有正常的条件。
Under the right circumstances, protest movements are powerful and provide the impetus for social reform.根据权利的情况下，抗议运动，并提供强大的动力，为社会改革。 “The urgency, solidarity, and militancy that conflict generates lends movements distinctive capacities as political communicators.” At least for a brief time, “marches, rallies, strikes and shutdowns can break the monopoly on political discourse otherwise held by politicians and the mass media.” They can bring vital issues to the fore and get politicians (out of fear) to address them. “的紧迫性，团结，和战斗力冲突产生出鲜明的运动能力，作为政治沟通” ，至少在简短的时间， “游行，集会，罢工和停产，可以打破垄断的政治话语，否则举行的政客和传媒“他们可以把重要的问题，以前列，并获得政客（出于恐惧）来解决这些问题。 Potential or actual “voter dissensus is the main source of movement influence on public policy.” It was true in the 1930s, again in the 1960s, and the latter victories inspired other movements for women’s rights, the disabled, gays, lesbians, and so forth.
The Times-In-Between
Unfortunately, disruptive movements are short-lived. After a few years they pass as politicians mount rollback initiatives when the pressure is off and they’re able to do it. New state constitutions stripped away hard-won abolitionist reforms. Labor rights underwent a gradual erosion after peaking in the 1930s. Union membership declined from a post-war 34.7% high. It was 16.8% after the Reagan era and is currently around 12% overall today but only 7.4% in the private sector.
Social gains have also eroded, and now have Democrats as much against them as Republicans. Why so is the question? It’s because protest movements lose their energy when the reasons causing them subside. Further, it’s because internal movement dynamics are hard to sustain. They wane from exhaustion. Exhilaration can’t last forever. In addition, defiance entails costs and sacrifice. Strikers lose wages. Workers get fired. Plants relocate, and governments support business and sometimes with force.
Protests also fade when gains are won. They always fall short and yet fail to embolden more action. Movement leaders also get co-opted, become more conciliatory to management, get more enmeshed in party politics, and sometimes run for office at federal, state or local levels. Dissensus has its limits. Inevitably, gains come at the expense of concessions, the movement runs out of energy, disruption ebbs, and hard-won reforms get rolled back. Nonetheless, these are glorious times in our history, momentous advances get achieved, and the lesson is that at other times for other reasons it can happen again.
People in large numbers and with enough will have enormous power provided they use it. Nonetheless, it’s disconcerting that the Constitution was designed as a conservative document to protect what Michael Parenti calls “a rising bourgeoisie(’s)” freedom to “invest, speculate, trade, and accumulate,” and to assure that (as John Jay believed) “The people who own the country (ought) to run it.”
After Reconstruction, Abolitionists lost out as well. Southern states regrouped, enacted new laws, and curbed the rights of newly freed blacks. The old planter class was gone but not its mentality. A new capitalist planter class replaced it, many from the North, and it proved easy for them to devise new ways to exploit cheap, vulnerable black labor.
The Supreme Court went along much the way it does today. In a number of decisions, it rolled back civil rights gains, including enough of the Fourteenth Amendment to restore near-total white supremacy in the South. Its 1896 “separate but equal” Plessy ruling added insult to its 1857 Dred Scott support for slavery.
Post-war, blacks were nominally free but light years from equality, and southern states intended to keep it that way. Property tests, poll taxes and literacy qualifications were imposed to enforce disenfranchisement. Jim Crow laws multiplied and lynchings became a way of life. Washington was dismissive.
Labor also lost out in the post-New Deal years. What the NLRA gave, Taft-Hartley and other regressive laws took back. Labor got progressively weaker, its leadership became part of the problem, while business ascended to omnipotence with plenty of friendly governments on its side. Early on, workers hoped the Democrat Party would represent them. How could it in the conservative (anti-labor) South and, in the North, where big city bosses ran things. Over time, business took over and effectively created a one-party state with “two right wings,” as Gore Vidal explains.
Post-WW II, Piven notes that America’s economic dominance was unchallenged for 25 years, so business opposition to New Deal gains was largely muted. But once Europe and Japan recovered, they became formidable competitors, profit margins got squeezed, and a conservative counterassault gained momentum to roll back earlier social gains. Piven cites four ways:
– a “war of ideas” beginning in the early 1970s with the formation of a right wing “message machine” - corporate-funded think tanks like Cato, Hoover, Heritage and AEI; they preached cutting social programs, weakening unions, ending costly regulations, military spending, tough law enforcement, privatizing everything, and using the dominant media for propaganda;
– building up a business lobbying capacity; “K Street” became a household term, and so is the “revolving door” arrangement between business and government;
– the growth of right wing populism, “rooted in fundamentalist churches” as part of the powerful Christian Right; also pro-life, defense-of-marriage and gun groups, along with others opposed to progressive ideas, racial and sexual liberalism, and the notion that public welfare is a good thing and government ought to provide it; in their best of all possible worlds, markets work best so let them, and democracy is only for the priviliged; and
– the effective merging of Republicans and Democrats into one pro-business party with each pretty much vying to outdo or outfox the other; it took Democrat Bill Clinton to “end welfare as we know it,” continue shifting more of the tax burden from the rich to workers, enact tough law enforcement measures, offer big giveaways to business, cut social benefits as much as Republicans, and pretty much make the 1990s a new golden age for Wall Street and the privileged. James Petras calls the decade “the golden age of pillage.”
George Bush then took over and went Clinton whole new measures better - declaring open warfare on workers, waging real wars on the world, enacting repressive police state laws, surrendering unconditionally to business, smashing every social service in sight, desecrating the environment, pretty much acting as despotic and vicious as the worst third world dictators, and getting away with it.
Since the early 1970s, and especially since Ronald Reagan, most notable in Piven’s mind is “the striking rise in wealth and income inequality” that economist Paul Krugman calls “unprecedented.” Moreover, “as wealth concentration grows, so does the arrogance and power that it yields to the wealth-holders to continue to bend government policies to their own interests.”
With business so omnipotent, government as its handmaiden, the scale of corruption extreme, the electoral process so flawed, it makes the task of redressing social gains lost formidable but not impossible.
Epilogue
Given the state of things, Piven poses the essential question - is another “popular upheaval” possible? She calls this “the big question for our time.” Nothing is certain or simple, but historically “hardship propels people to collective defiance,” especially in times of extreme inequalities of wealth. The current American era is the most extreme ever, so how long will people tolerate the decline in their standard of living as the rich grow richer and multi-billions go wars without end.
How does the Bush administration respond - with a dominant media “message machine” touting an “ownership society,” scaring people to accept the outlandish and fraudulent “war on terror,” blaming victims for their own misfortune, letting (Christian) faith-based groups take over welfare, preaching God and markets solve everything, and calling a lack of patriotism the equivalent of treason.
Piven, nonetheless, is hopeful. Independent polls show Bush’s approval at record lows as well as a large majority opposing the Iraq war. In addition, she sees “an intimate connection between what people think is possible in politics and what they think is right.” Popular aspirations tend to rise for what people believe is “evident” and “reach(able).”
So she asks: “What, then, are the prospects for the emergence of new social movements that mobilize disruptive power?” Global justice demonstrations in Seattle and around the world aren’t enough. Much more is needed. Labor must become resurgent, but it’s no simple matter doing it and without committed leadership impossible.
Yet it happened in the 1930s at a time of great need, and Piven suggests that “Maybe workers need to see the possibility of worker power again.” Activists and organizers must concentrate on “developing and demonstrating power strategies” for a “new economy” that’s increasingly service-based, high-tech and global.
Millions still live here, their standard of living is declining, business pretty much has it all, and it’s high time that changed. People have power but only if they use it. New times need “new forms of political action, new ‘repertoires’ that extend across borders and tap the chokepoints of new systems of production (and governance)” where they’re most vulnerable to mass disruption.
Piven closes by saying that history shows that “collective defiance” and its subsequent “disruption” have “always been essential to the preservation of democracy.” It’s no different today than it’s ever been, and that’s an idea to build on.
See More: Stephen Lendman ÂHave Your Say: ‘Challenging Authority’
Please note, only selected comments will be published.
Or discuss this report in our our new forums
2 Responses to “‘Challenging Authority’”
Garry
Posted: May 16th, 2008 at 1:28 pm | Link to thisNeal
Posted: May 17th, 2008 at 11:38 pm | Link to thisReplyProblem with this is it’s exactly what The Keepers want to happen.
This is 1960’s style protests and they are a 2008 trap.
Laws changed in 2002 making it possible to end any uprising very quickly and with who cares about the bloodshed.
Large movements also rely on people having it in them to hold a thought or intent for longer than 24 hours … name one!!
By the time a movement has hit the media, government agents are already involved at top levels in that movement controlling and directing it’s actions to “The Keepers” end agenda.
So in my opinion, there is no “in mass” answer to the problem at all … HOWEVER there may be room for separate people to make their way out to some form of safety.
One would have to leave society behind, grow all your own food and have control over your own water.
Free Newsletter 
Loading ... Related News
- Man dies after police Taser him
- WAC Confronts Peter Power
- Karachi, Pakistan in large-scale power
- Supreme Court Limits Students’ Speech Rights
- Former UN chief links democracy, human rights
Email This Page To A Friend
Latest Headlines
- ‘Challenging Authority’
- Torture Policies Undermine 9/11 Case
- Guantanamo official says he’s not resigning
- China Says Quake Death Toll Could Top 50,000
- McCain: Most Troops Will Be Home by 2013
- Watchdog: European DNA Database a Potential Nightmare
- Top Activist’s Detention Blot on Democracy
- White House denied knowledge of military analyst program
- President Bush should be impeached for war crimes
- Blair recalls despair at Bush’s victory
More Breaking News
Archive
Excellent article, the only problem is the people, some call it apathy, others indifference.
The fact is that if the present day population had been around in 1939 we all be singing Deutschland Ãœber Alles! Give them their Beer, TV and throw a few pennies at them and they’ll pretend it isn’t happening.
Virtually every war and incidence of human misery has been caused by politicians, their corporate masters and their greed. So when will people stand up to be counted?
Governments have succeeded in convincing people that they can do nothing. It doesn’t require violence, people must learn to use their votes tactically, get rid of the rotten Politicians and replace them with men and women of substance.
The next stage is to remove power from the Blair’s, Brown’s and Bush’s of this world and instigate Direct Democracy, the right of referenda, put the power back with the people.
The Swiss did it and whilst their system isn’t perfect, it is a lot better than any other Governmental system.
Politicians can’t be trusted with unfettered power, this is why the EU is so dangerous.