‘Challenging Authority’ '富有挑戰性的權威'
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個出生在加拿大的教授，政治學和社會學在研究生中心，紐約市立大學（紐約市立大學） 。 Her career is long and distinguished.她的職業生涯是漫長而傑出的。 She’s the recipient of numerous awards, has combined scholarship with activism, and is the author of many important books.她的收件人獲獎無數，已聯合獎學金與積極性，是作者的許多重要書籍。 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.最顯著的是她71年的經典“規管窮人：職能的公共福利。 ”這是具有里程碑意義的歷史和理論分析如何福利政策是用來控制窮人和工人階級。
A more recent book is her 2006-published “Challenging Authority” and subject of this review.更近期的書是她2006年出版的“挑戰權威”和議題進行這項檢討。 It’s about how social movements can be pivotal forces for change because ordinary people in enough numbers have enormous political clout.它的有關如何社會運動可以舉足輕重的力量變化的影響，因為一般人在足夠數量巨大的政治影響力。 Abolitionists, labor movements and civil rights activists proved it.贊成廢除死刑，工人運動和民權活躍分子證明了這一點。 Piven examines their collective actions plus one other in the four examples she chose - the American Revolution.派文審查他們的集體行動，加一在其他四個例子，她選擇-美國革命。
Piven’s book is succinct and masterful.派文的書是簡潔和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.”霍華德zinn要求它是“輝煌的分析之間的相互作用，受歡迎的抗議和選舉政治。 ”加拿大教授利奧panitch說，這本書是“從理論上深刻，但巨大的可讀性， ”和社會學家和社會運動專家蘇珊eckstein介紹了這本書作為“典型派文29 “ ， ”雄辯地（顯示）如何普通百姓… … 。採取了它自己，以正確的不公正“ 。
Piven’s theme is powerfully relevant at a perilous time in our history.派文的主題是有力的有關在一個危險的時間在我們的歷史。 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.國家現在處於戰爭狀態兩方面，第三個1織機，憲法保護有侵蝕，社會服務抹去，該國是軍事化，壓制不同政見，和政府賦予的權力，粉碎的自由和捍衛特權，犧牲了有益的社會改變它絕不會容忍。
Introduction導言
In light of the current situation, Piven’s introductory Thomas Jefferson quote is relevant.鑑於目前的形勢下，派文的介紹托馬斯杰弗遜是引述有關。 It was his response to the repressive 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.這是他回應的鎮壓1798年的外國人及煽動叛亂的行為。 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.他寫道： “有點耐心，我們會看到統治巫婆，通過以上的，他們闡述了解散，和人民群眾，恢復其真實的視線，恢復其政府的真正原則” 。破壞性的社會行動做了它在過去的，並派文提出這樣說： “一般人（有）的權力… ，當他們站起來，在憤怒和希望，藐視規則… … 。破壞（國家）機構… … 。推進新問題，該中心的政治辯論… … 。 （和部隊）政治領導人（ ）幹選民叛逃由proferring改革。 These are the conditions that produce (America’s) democratic moments.”這些都是條件，生產（美國的）民主的時刻“ 。
Electoral participation alone won’t do it.參加選舉，單是不能這樣做。 “In the real American political world, numerous obstacles” remain - structural, legal and practical. “在現實中美國的政治世界，無數的障礙”仍然是-結構，法律和實際。 Despite liberalization of the process through the years, “large numbers of ostensibly eligible voters” are effectively disenfranchised.儘管自由化的過程中經過多年的“ ，大量的表面上合資格的選民”是有效剝奪了。 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.前限制性的法律不見了，但新的計劃，取代他們-恐嚇，誤導，選舉舞弊，以及腐蝕的權力，金錢，在一個民族的依賴資本不惜犧牲更大的利益。
Piven cites more as well:派文更多的瀕危物種貿易公約，以及：
– the power of incumbency, -權力的在職人員，
– the two-party system that shuts out independent and minority interests, -兩黨制度，關閉獨立及少數股東權益，
– the construct of the law that empowers the powerful, -構建法律授權強大，
– the revolving door between business and government, -旋轉門之間的商業和政府，
– the corrupted dominant media, -損壞的主導媒體，
– the lack of accountability to voters, -缺乏問責選民，
– arbitrary redistricting for political advantage, -任意r edistricting為政治優勢，
– believing markets work best so let them, -相信市場的工作，最好讓他們，
– disdaining the harm they cause, -d isdaining的傷害，他們的事業，
– feeling interfering with market excess is “moral trespass,” -感覺干預市場的過剩是“道德侵入”
– sacrificing democracy in the pursuit of profit, -犧牲民主，在追求利潤，
– and it all turning the public away from a process they no longer trust. -這一切，把市民遠離一個過程，他們不再信任。
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，選民投票率的一半或更少的選民顯示，在調查和許多沒有被定罪。
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.後第二次世界大戰， “大多數政治科學家認為，美國的民主與自我滿意自滿。 ”這不是完美的，但它是最好的可能的時間。 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.二十年後，系統不完善，被更加明顯，以及最近的政治學教授羅伯特達爾說，我們的制度是“其中最不透明，複雜，混亂，很難理解” ，以顯示如何嚴重，我們的票價相比，其他的民主政體。
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.”不平等是極端的和不斷增長，派文稱之為“惡毒”品種“模式的統治和subservience （和）破壞民主的能力” 。她的政治行情分析師Kevin菲利普斯說，華盛頓是“領導的利益集團坊的西方世界“經濟學家保羅克魯格曼，要求我們的政治制度”完全和不可逆轉的損壞，或許“ 。
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.壞的，因為它現在是，民主派文說， “從來沒有運作良好，在美國的”引述十九世紀，她指出，如何“蓋章和成型激烈的宗教和民族忠誠（這反過來又創造了文化）政黨（在所有各級）沉浸在使用量。 “這是在一個時間，公司權力的增長，並開始取得優勢，現在司空見慣的和有害的，以公眾利益。
Nonetheless, egalitarian reform is possible, and Piven recounts four crucial times when it showed up.然而，平均主義的改革是可能的，並且派文重新四個關鍵的時候出現。 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，抗議運動達到它的影響美國政治， “如果只是暫時的， ”這是毫不奇怪的力量“ ，流向這些誰擁有更多的東西和屬性的價值在社會生活中” ，但時代出現時， “工人或農民或暴徒行使權力， “它的”獨特的… … 。干擾或相互依存的， “它發生時的條件是正確的，為它成為現實。
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?派文國的“核心問題” ，她的書： “由於權力的不平等現象（在美國） ”以及它如何腐化，政治進程， “如何平等的改革以往任何時候都發生”在所有？ It’s only been at times of “disruptive protest movements” with their “distinctive kind of power” Piven calls “disruptive power.”它的唯一一直處於時代的“破壞性的抗議運動”與“獨特的種權力”派文呼籲“破壞性力量” 。
The Nature of Disruptive Power性質的破壞性的權力
First a definition of power in the abstract.首先定義的權力，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， “廣泛舉行的論斷（它的）的基礎上控制的財富和力量” -大的地主超過農民，豐富的超過窮人，兩軍平民，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.”不過，它的情況並非總是如此， “歷史是點”的例子， “人沒有財富，或脅迫性的資源… … 。 exercis （荷蘭）的權力，至少在一段時間” 。
She notes how societies organize through cooperation and interdependence, but disparate interests at times conflict.她指出，如何社團組織，通過合作和相互依存的，但不相干的利益，在時代的衝突。 While workers depend on management for jobs, managers, in turn, need a work force to produce.而工人的依賴於管理職位，經理，在轉，需要一個工作隊，生產。 If labor is withheld, production halts.如果勞動是隱瞞，生產停止。 Both sides have leverage.雙方的槓桿作用。 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.派文呼籲“激活相互依存的權力'的干擾” 。它的權力策略的基礎上“退出合作，在社會關係”的抗議運動“ ，動員破壞性的權力， ”他們實現槓桿，打破“從制度上規管合作”作為在罷工，抵制或暴亂。
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.在這些時候，一般人（可能）有巨大的力量-“他們的能力，破壞制度化的合作，取決於其持續的貢獻。 ”關鍵是偉大的改革，在歷史上已“的反應，威脅（或使用）的破壞性的權力。 “在美國，它實現了有代表性的政府，結束了奴隸制，組織權，社會福利和公民權利。 Grassroots bottom-up “disruptive power” produced them.基層自下而上“的破壞性的力量”製作出來的一樣。
But it takes more than marches, rallies, slogans, shouting or even violence.但以上的遊行，集會，標語，呼喊，甚至暴力。 It’s also too simplistic to think power from below is there for the taking.它也過於簡單，認為權力來自下面是有，為考慮。 Actualizing power depends on the ability to withhold cooperation. actualizing權力取決於能否扣壓合作。 But it’s not “actionable” until certain problems are solved:但它不是“可採取行動” ，直到某些問題得到解決：
– recognizing interdependence and the potential power from below such as workers withholding their labor or wives their domestic services; -認識到相互依存和潛在的權力來自下面，如工人扣壓他們的勞動或妻子，其國內服務;
– 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; -必要性的人打破規則;規則的權力戰略;它們允許一些人主宰別人，建立產權，成為法律，等等;
– individuals must coordinate their disruptive power for strategic advantage; -個人必須協調其破壞性的力量，為戰略優勢;
– they must overcome constraints of an entire matrix of social relations; examples are the influence of family ties or the threat of religious excommunication; -他們必須克服的制約整個矩陣的社會關係;的例子是影響家庭關係或威脅使用宗教絕罰;
– disruptive power must be sustained, cooperation withheld, and be able to withstand whatever reprisals occur; and -破壞性的權力，必須持續下去，不予合作，並能承受什麼報復的發生;
– the determination to stay the course in the wake of threats and uncertainty - employers who may hire scabs or relocate their plants and facilities. -決心留下來的過程中，在之後的威脅和不確定性-雇主誰可以僱用sc abs或搬遷，他們的工廠和設施。
New strategies aren’t invented for each challenge.新的戰略，不是發明為每個挑戰。 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.他們正在“嵌入式記憶體或文化，在一種語言的阻力（和）變成'匯輯』 （一）具體星座的戰略actualize相互依存的權力。 ”新曲目從下面是發達國家在回應社會和經濟變化。 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.他們變成了“偽造的，在一個政治進程的行動和反應” 。受歡迎的鬥爭，隨著時間改變，因此，舉例來說，糧食暴動，成為罕見的罷工行動的典型。 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.不過，他們現在正在威脅減弱，勞動保護，生長的臨時員工，以及有能力的雇主經營在世界上任何地方，根據世貿組織的規則。
Slowly over time, new repertoires emerge to respond to conditions of the times.慢慢隨著時間的推移，新的曲目出現回應的時代條件。 Lessons are learned from defeat, anger and defiance builds, and creative imagination invents new solutions to old problems.教訓是從失敗的教訓，憤怒和蔑視，建立，和創造性的想像力發明新的解決辦法老問題。
The Mob and the State - Disruptive Power and the Construction of American Electoral-Representative Arrangements暴徒和國家-破壞性的權力和建設美國的選舉代表性的安排
Disorderly and defiant crowds or mobs figure prominently in the history of disruptive movements.無序和違抗人群或暴民的數字，突出在歷史上破壞性的動作。 They played an important role in the Revolutionary War period and years leading up to it.他們發揮了重要作用，在革命戰爭時期和年領導了它。 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.美國的精英，專職與暴徒，因為他們成長感到不安，英國的管治和發展激進思想的權利，該殖民地自治政府。 Without mob support, the war with England couldn’t have been won.沒有暴民的支持，戰爭與英格蘭不能已韓元。 They provided the troops who fought it.他們所提供的部隊誰打了它。
Most colonists were from England, and by the mid-1700s numbered around 1.6 million.最殖民者分別來自英格蘭，和中編號為1700左右， 160萬人。 Most had egalitarian ideas and were ordinary people - artisans, apprentices, sailors, laborers, urban poor, farmers, bonded servants, and so forth.最有教無類的思想和被普通百姓-工匠，學徒，水手，勞動者，城市貧民，農民，保稅公務員，等等。 They also relied on mob action for results.他們還依賴於暴民行動的結果。
In the pre-revolutionary period, “riots and tumults” were commonplace.在會前革命時期， “暴亂和tumults ”司空見慣。 Bacon’s 1676 Rebellion of discontented frontiersmen and slaves was the first one of note.培根1676年叛亂的不滿， frontiersmen和奴隸是第一個值得注意的。 In the next 100 years, another 18 uprisings erupted (according to Howard Zinn) against colonial governments along with six black rebellions and 40 riots.在未來的一百年，另有18起義爆發（根據霍華德zinn ）反對殖民統治的政府，隨著六黑色的反叛和40暴亂。
Tensions grew as the years passed.緊張局勢的增長隨著歲月的通過。 They challenged Britain and colonial elites.他們質疑，英國和殖民地的精英。 Inequalities also increased, and they spawned protests against them.不平等現象也有所增加，和他們產生了對他們的抗議。 One study cited 150 riots in cities and rural areas between 1765 and 1769.一項研究列舉150暴動在城市和農村地區之間的1765年和1769年。 In addition, merchants and landowners grew angry with the Crown.此外，商人和地主增長憤怒與冠。 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，它發出的常備軍，以殖民地，介紹了新稅種，作出要求，鋼坯，英國軍隊和遏止殖民地議會的權力。 It introduced the Sugar Act, Tea Act and a new Stamp Act.它介紹了糖法，茶法和新郵票的行為。 Colonists resisted and mob action was crucial.殖民者的抵制和暴民的行動是至關重要的。
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.他們提出的印花稅法的執法不可能棄茶到一個以上的港口，以證明這一點，除了顯著1773年12月16日波士頓的行動。 Historian Edward Countryman called it the “final rupture” leading up to war.歷史學家愛德華鄉下人稱之為“最後破裂”導致戰爭。 Those who took up arms wanted popular democracy, and it affected the post-revolutionary drafting of state constitutions.這些誰拿起武器，想人民民主，它影響了後革命的起草國家憲法。 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.它們反映了“平等和自由的想法蔓延向上和向下東海岸。 ”他們希望受歡迎的自由和起草的法律，有限的行政權力，建立了院的立法機關，或至少強大的低房子，短期內的辦公室，迫使民選官員要面對選民更經常地，基本上是使政府向人民負責。
It alarmed the nation’s elites who, in turn, precipitated efforts to reform the new state constitutions and reign in their democratic excesses.它感到震驚全國的精英誰，在反過來，沉澱的改革努力，這個新國家的憲法和統治，在他們的民主過度。 Defeating England unleashed electorate demands, and they showed up in popular rebellions.戰勝英格蘭發動選民的要求，顯示了他們在流行的反叛。 They were fueled by postwar depression, debt, and legislative imposition of poll and property taxes on farmers.他們刺激了戰後的抑鬱症，債務和立法施加調查和物業稅對農民的。 They petitioned for relief, got none, so armed mobs closed the courts to stop debtor suits and stave off foreclosure on their farms.他們請願，救濟，沒有得到，所以武裝暴徒封閉，法院停止債務人的訴訟和緩解贖回權問題上他們的農場。 Rebellions spread across New England with Daniel Shays leading the most famous one in 1786 and 1787.反叛遍布新英格蘭與Daniel shays領導最有名的一在1786年和1787年。 The rebels were dispersed, but they got amnesty, tax relief, and most imprisoned debtors were released.叛軍被分散，但他們得到大赦，稅項寬免，以及最被監禁的債務人被釋放。
Elites were alarmed, excess democracy had to be curbed, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention became the way to do it.精英均感到震驚，過剩的民主要抑制，和1787年的憲法，成為公約的方式去做。 There were other problems as well.還有其他問題。 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.文章邦聯被笨重，不得不更換，和一個新的文件，需要將持續到“遠程未來”的利益服務“ （只）的人”誰重要的。 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.他們建立了白人男性的財產擁有代表和委員的國家公約誰撞的批准進程，通過在面對一個主要漠不關心， uncomprehending民眾離開完全。
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.所面臨的挑戰是提供民主的優惠，創造一個民主的外觀，但框架一份文件，供豐富的物業業主，負責該進程，為自身利益。 Only the privileged could vote.只有特權可以投票。 Women, blacks, Indians and children couldn’t and most who qualified didn’t bother.婦女，黑人，印度人和兒童不能和誰最有資格並沒有理會。 The process, and what it produced, showed operatively democracy is little more than fantasy, but it wasn’t designed to appear that way.這個過程中，以及它的產生，表明手術民主是多一點的幻想，但它的設計不出現這樣的。
The “people” got to elect lower house members, who, in turn, elected senators to the upper chamber. “人”到了選出下議院議員，誰，在反過來，當選為參議員，到上廳舉行會議。 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.該系統下榻的這種方式，直到第十七修正案（批准於1913年）允許選民在每個國家選出代表向美國國會參眾兩院。
Also proposed was a chief executive, a national judiciary with a Supreme Court, and provisions for admitting new states with republican governments.還提議是一個行政長官，一個國家的司法機構與最高法院，並規定，吸納新的國家與共和黨政府。 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，該憲法修正案的程序和更為，包括條款辦公室和交錯選舉，以防止太多的官員正在該處在同一時間內。 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，最終產品是捆綁的妥協，取得了很少的實質“人” ，和有保證的權力留給了強大的。
The Constitution’s opening words were “We the people,” but, in fact, they were nowhere in sight.憲法的開放的話， “我們的人” ，但事實上，他們是遙遙無期。 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“工程是一個保守的反革命… … 。其目的… … 。是為了阻撓人民的意志，在其將他們採取行動。 ”政府根據新的創建文檔，以填補真空所造成的失敗，偉大的英國。 It restored the essential British commercial and financial system and put it under new management.它恢復了至關重要的英國商業和金融制度，並根據新的管理。 Monarchal wrappings were removed, everything changed, and yet everything, in fact, stayed the same. monarchal包裝紙被拆除，一切都改變，但一切，事實上，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，有那麼多的叛亂與這麼少的原因，與這麼少，以顯示它。
Consider the Constitution’s crowing achievement, at least so we’re told - the Bill of Rights.考慮憲法的擁擠的成就，至少所以我們說-人權法案。 Adopting them made the difference to get 13 states to ratify the document and make it law.通過他們提出的差異得到13個國家的批准文件，並使它的法律。 Their protections weren’t for “the people.” They were for the privileged who wanted:他們的保護，沒有“人民” 。他們為特權誰通緝：
– prohibitions against quartering troops in their property; -禁止設營部隊在他們的財產;
– 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; -有權以國家的民兵保護他們;
– the right to bear arms, but not the way the Second Amendment is today interpreted; -有權攜帶武器，但不是這樣的第二項修訂是今天的解釋;
– - the rights of free speech, the press, religion, assembly and petition - largely for the monied and propertied interests; --的權利，自由言論，新聞，宗教，集會和請願書-主要是為m o n ied和pr o pertied利益;
– due process of law with speedy public trials; and -法律正當程序與迅速的公開審判;
– 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. -其他各項工作的規定，通過妥協;兩個額外的修訂建議，但拒絕;杰斐遜和麥迪遜希望他們;亞當斯和漢密爾頓則反對;便禁止壟斷和常備軍;在年底，前1 0個單獨獲得通過;我們從來沒有看到有什麼分別其他兩個可能會作出。
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.派文的主要點是不是“制定憲法”有限“受歡迎的權力， ”這是“破壞性的權力的挑戰（的時間）不能（完全）忽略了… … ”的創始人建立了一個共和黨政府，受歡迎的自由（學位）的讓步，和想法（如果不是現實） “的同意，治理”成為一個基本原則，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，在隨後的幾十年來，普選的擴大，納稅人要求更換物業，而這些，也被逐步淘汰。 By the 1830s, most white men had the right to vote.由1830年代，大多數白人男子有投票權。 It’s unlikely these changes would have happened under British rule.它的這些變化不大可能會發生在英國統治下。 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，雖然是沒有異議就如何，政府是要而言， （在約翰亞當斯換句話說， “富者，以及出生，並能” ）暴徒，根據派文， “發揮了大，如果在錯綜複雜的作用建造一個新的國家至少有一些元素的特點民主“ 。
Dissensus Politics, or the Interaction of Disruptive Challenges with Electoral Politics - The Case of the Abolitionist Movement dissensus政治，或相互作用的破壞性挑戰與選舉政治-案件廢除死刑的運動
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 ： ”作為一個拔河的需要之間的政治領袖“調動多數”和“破壞性的挑戰者工作（荷蘭）片段。 ”她還稱這是“關鍵的理解”破壞性的抗議權，公共政策的決定。 Political coalitions are at times fragile and vulnerable.政治聯盟，都是在時代的脆弱和易受傷害。 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.”當反對的共識面，並建立，可以fractious ，破壞性的，和一個“開放（獲得）的政策優惠，對（分裂）運動的問題” 。
Case in point - “Abolitionism.” By one estimate, free blacks numbered around 59,000 in 1790.典型的例子-“廢除主義” ，根據一項估計，自由的黑人人數在5 .9萬左右， 1 790。 By the start of the Civil War, the total had increased eightfold to about 488,000.由開始的內戰，共增加了八倍至約48.8萬。 In the run-up the the Revolutionary War, slavery issues were contentious with hints early on about what later might develop.在運行了革命戰爭年代，奴隸制問題的爭議與暗示，早期就什麼稍後可能發展。
In spite of owning slaves himself, Jefferson’s first Declaration of Independence draft included grievances against the Crown’s involvement in trafficking.儘管如此，擁有自己的奴隸，杰弗遜的第一獨立宣言草案包括怨氣，針對官方的參與，在販毒活動。 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.南部代表了問題，該條款是下降，並建立了戰後的共識，南方，以保證他們的奴隸制度將維持不變。
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.它導致了第1條第2款，第3條憲法說，奴隸會被算作三五分之四的人的目的，分配國會的代表性。 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.”據歷史學家程介南遺囑：南部各州，這個問題是“非流通條件，為他們加入聯盟”和與它得到的“大和盛氣凌人的代表在國會” 。
Consider some other relevant facts:考慮到一些其他相關的事實：
– large slave owners had disproportionate power; they controlled state legislatures and selected senators; -大奴隸業主有非同一般的權力，他們控制的國家立法機關和選定的參議員;
– most American presidents until the Civil War were southerners and slaveholders (including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson); -大多數美國總統，直到內戰被南方人和奴隸主（包括華盛頓，杰弗遜，麥迪遜，門羅和傑克遜） ;
– the first US 1790 census reported 757,000 blacks or nearly one-fifth of the total four million population; -美國第一1 790年的人口普查報告7 57000黑人或近五分之一的總人口4 00.0萬;
– 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，國會禁止進口非洲奴隸後， 1 808年，但非法販運所帶來的在另一2 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; -頒布了奴隸制的規定，為北方以及南方，只有賓夕法尼亞州和新英格蘭國家取締的做法;在1 787年，大多數國家都是奴隸的國家，新憲法保護其控股;
– 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; -交互播種機，商業，銀行業和製造業的利益捆綁北方和南方一起;奴役和棉花，豐富了南，生產興旺，和北部的製造業也受惠;
– the human bondage system affected radical abolitionists; they knew that ending slavery meant “overturning” the Constitution; -人類的奴役制度，受影響的激進的贊成廢除死刑;他們知道結束奴隸制的意思是“推翻”憲法;
– 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; -以容納共識政治，妥協是可取的衝突;保護南方大部分n onslave北， “平衡”接納新奴隸和自由的國家同意對以及一個類似的安排，為總統和副總統門票;
– 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，妥協是脆弱的和斷面發生衝突;之一，例如已超過墨西哥戰爭，吞併得克薩斯州，和處置6 5.0萬平方英里的新的版圖;既不方對此感到滿意，即使妥協是可以實現的事項關稅，集中銀行，內部改進，和西方自由的土地。
Given the enormous costs of dissolution, why weren’t both sides committed to preventing it?由於巨大的成本，解散，為什麼沒有雙方致力於防止它呢？ Piven cites “the strident and disruptive abolitionist campaign with its demands for immediate emancipation.派文瀕危物種貿易公約“刺耳和破壞性廢除死刑的運動，要求其立即解放。 Abolitionism fractured….the sectional accord” that held disparate elements together - until 1860.廢除主義裂縫… … 。斷面協議“舉行不相干的元素一起-直到1 860年。
Who were the abolitionists?誰都是贊成廢除死刑？ 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.根據霍華德zinn ，他們是“編輯，演講，運行離家出走的奴隸，自由黑人激進份子，和槍toting傳教士” 。在一起，他們“字形… … 。運動，並有助於其破壞性的力量。 ”其影響裂縫交互締約方，分為民族，並導致內戰和法律的解放。
“Evangelical revivalists” were committed to reform. “福音事工促進會， revivalists ”致力於改革。 They believed slavery was sinful, and would accept nothing less than ending it.他們認為，奴隸制是罪孽深重，並會接受任何少於結束。 In 1831, William Lloyd Garrison founded The Liberator.在1831年，威廉勞埃德駐軍成立了解放者。 It became the voice of militant abolitionism.它成為的聲音，好戰的廢除主義。 “Garrison was no gradualist.” He refused compromise and demanded “immediate and unconditional emancipation.” “駐軍是沒有漸進式” ，他拒絕妥協，並要求“立即和無條件地解放” 。
Others were equally committed.其他人同樣承諾。 They formed antislavery associations, edited papers, spoke publicly, and by 1841 claimed 200,000 members.他們形成了antislavery協會，編輯文件，以公開，由1841年聲稱200000成員。 Religious passion and enlightenment fervor spread throughout the North.宗教激情和啟示的熱潮，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，這是反對“南權利”的社會，用聖經要求“奴役履行上帝的用途。 ”它產生的分裂和內亂，得到駐軍遊行，通過波士頓與一條繩子靠近他的脖子，和治安歡迎委員會期待已久的北部贊成廢除死刑南下。
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，廢除主義上升，國會請願antislavery展開，國會聲稱，沒有權力的行為，成千上萬的奴隸了事項掌握在自己手中。 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.他們抵制“逃稅行為，破壞，自殺，或離家出走” ，也有奴隸起義-在1 800年在3月就里士滿; 1 811年就種植園附近的新紐奧良; 1 817年和1 818年在佛羅里達州;和N AT特納和7 0個其他的奴隸在維吉尼亞州的“ kill （荷蘭）所有白人” ，並不遺餘力地之一。
Most disruptive was the Underground Railway with whites and free blacks involved.大多數破壞性的是地下鐵路與白人和黑人的自由參與。 It defied federal antifugitive laws and freed tens of thousands of southern slaves.它無視聯邦antifugitive法律和釋放數以萬計的南部的奴隸。 Abolitionist disruptions “inevitably penetrated electoral politics.” It fragmented both parties, made compromise impossible, and led to the emergence of the Republican Party.廢除死刑的中斷“無可避免地侵入選舉政治” ，支離破碎的當事雙方作出妥協，是不可能的，並導致出現了共和黨黨。 It opposed expanding slavery as new states entered the union, and in 1860 got Abraham Lincoln elected president.它反對擴大奴隸制為新的國家進入了聯盟，並在1860年得到美國總統林肯當選總統。 His platform - containing slavery and condemning threats of disunion as treason.他的政綱-含有奴役和譴責的威脅，分裂叛國。
The South responded.南方回應。 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.七國seceded ，砲台森普特遭到攻擊，內戰開始，四更多的奴隸國加入了別人，林肯致力於戰爭，以恢復聯盟。 As conflict wore on, its horrific toll drove him toward emancipation.作為解決衝突的推移，其可怕的收費開車送他對解放。 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作用的奴隸… … 。大概是關鍵，他決定”在戰爭期間，數以十萬計的，他們拒絕工作，被遺棄的種植園，並削弱邦聯的執政能力，飼料本身。 In addition, around 200,000 slaves fought with the North, and their numbers were significant in achieving victory.此外，約20.0萬奴隸爭取與北韓，他們的人數均顯著在實現勝利。
Abolitionism grew, southern secession spurred it, and in January 1865 Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery.廢除主義的增長，帶動南部分裂國家，並在1865年1月國會通過了第十三修正案，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.名義上，以前的奴隸獲得更多的權利，從第十四（適當程序和平等保護）和第十五（禁止種族歧視在表決）的修訂，以及為公民權利的行為1866 。
“Abolitionists had triumphed,” they did it through electoral politics by splitting the parties, yet their victory was limited. “贊成廢除死刑已獲勝， ”他們這樣做，是通過選舉的政治分裂締約方，但他們的勝利是有限的。 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.後的解放，不結盟運動“融化成，共和兩黨， ”南部和北部的領導人，成為寬鬆，和精英在南方“動議的迅速恢復他們的控制權黑人” ，但令人印象深刻的勝利，贏得即使只是輕微的，它會採取一個世紀之前，黑人得到任何他們的憲法權利。
Movements and Reform in the American Twentieth Century運動和改革，在美國二十世紀
Throughout American history, disruptive protests were common, yet rarely did any have a “big bang” effect.在整個美國歷史上破壞性的抗議活動常見的，但很少有沒有有一個“大爆炸”的效果。 Decades elapsed between successful abolitionism and New Deal reforms.幾十年過去了之間的成功廢除主義和新政改革。 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世紀，派文指出，幾乎所有重要的勞動，公民權利和社會福利立法獲得通過，在短短兩年的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.有一個例外-1 972年的補充保障收入（相互作用）為老人和窮人的人士，殘疾人士。
Great Depression hard times spurred important reforms to provide emergency relief:大蕭條的艱難歲月推動的重要改革，以提供緊急救濟：
– the Civil Works Administration (CWA) for work relief; it reached 28 million people (22.2% of the population); -公務員工程管理處（ c wa）救濟工作;達到2 800.0萬人（ 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; -對社會的整體支出上升，從1 .34％ ，佔國內生產總值在1 932至5 ％ ，由1 934年，並表明政府的工務，為人民，當它想;
– 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年社會保障法確立了框架，今後所有的收入支持計劃-退休福利，失業，補充收入，資助房屋，和所有類別的“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. -最享權利擴大，在六十年代-養老金;失業保險;翻兩番的數目是婦女和兒童接受援助的受供養子女;醫療保險;醫療補助;新的營養計劃，包括食品郵票及學校午餐;聯邦教育援助;和內蒙古-城市發展，通過示範城市的行為， 1966年。
Overall in the 1960s, social spending rose from $37 billion to $140 billion in the post-1965 decade.整體在20世紀60年代，社會支出的上升，從370億美元到1400億美元，在後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，貧困水平下降了20 ％ ，在1965年的11 ％ 。
Each period also saw political rights expand.每一個時期，也看到了政治權利的擴大。 Mass strikes of the early 1930s produced the landmark 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).大規模的罷工30年代初產生了劃時代的1935年全國勞動關係法（ 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.為第一次，它給勞動集體談判的權利平等的條件下與管理，並提供法律保護的罷工行動。 The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act established national minimum wages and maximum hours. 1938年公平勞動標準法設立的全國最低工資和最高工時。 These laws advanced worker rights over the next three decades.這些法律先進工作者的權利在未來三年幾十年。
In 1964, civil rights actions got the Twenty-Fourth Amendment passed.在1964年，公民權利的行動得到了20 -第四修正案獲得通過。 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.它禁止人頭稅在聯邦大選，而且隨著1964年的民權法案和1965年的投票權利法凌駕於國家和地方的專營權，限制人，發生在南，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.作為派文提出： 20世紀60年代民權運動“ ，最終贏得了，一個世紀以後，改革首先宣布， （但從來沒有得到）在第十四屆和第十五修正案。 ”此外， 1964年的平等機會法（扶貧計劃）提供的聯邦基金為貧困的社區。
Why these “big bangs” then and not at other times?為什麼這些“大爆炸”的話，而不是在其他時間呢？ 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，因為他們得到了期間的“地下混亂”動員“相互依存的權力從下面… … ” 。退伍軍人遊行在華盛頓，租金罷工蔓延的勢頭，人民commandeered食品，發生的勞動罷工，示威，要求救濟，因此，羅斯福曾採取行動。 It wasn’t out of benevolence, and his 1932 platform showed it.這是不是出於善，和他的1932平台，表明它。 It contained the same old 1920s planks that kept Republicans in power throughout the decade.它載有相同的舊木板上世紀20年代一直在共和黨的權力，在整個十年。 Conditions now changed, disruptive protests demanded help, echoes of the 1917 Russian Revolution were still audible, so Roosevelt acted to save capitalism.現在條件改變，破壞性的抗議活動，要求幫助，迴聲1917年俄國革命仍在發聲，所以羅斯福總統採取行動，挽救資本主義。 He gave a little to save a lot for the privileged who understood the fragility of their position.他給小節省了很多的特權誰理解的脆弱他們的立場。
The 1960s saw other disruptive protests - this time by a massive black insurgency on one side against white southern “resistance” on the other. 20世紀60年代看到其他破壞性的抗議-這個時候由一個龐大的黑色叛亂對一方對白色南部的“抵抗”對其他。 It came to a head in the mid-1960s in the form of civil disobedience.它來到一個頭部在六十年代中期，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.它開始在南部地區，傳遍整個國家，導致在惡劣的警察鎮壓，破壞性更大的暴亂，他們被迫聯邦政府干預。 Turbulence, social unrest, and a climate of general crisis produced reforms to diffuse the disorder of the times.動盪，社會不安，以及氣候的一般危機產生的改革，以瀰漫性紊亂的時代。
Electoral forces also played a role the way Piven explains.選舉勢力也發揮了作用的方式派文解釋說。 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.她呼籲“之間的相互作用，選舉的變化和政治領袖… … 。最具影響力的解釋二十世紀的政策改變。 ”大爆炸“大選舉” 。 Two credible hypotheses explain how they occur:有兩個可信的假說，解釋他們如何發生的：
– 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 -“動員”的論文（在艱難的時刻）水平的提高投票率;新登記選民是關鍵;它們提供動力的調整下，這一理論;
– the “conversion” thesis (also during hard times) detaching voters from their traditional Republican Party affiliation; here shifting loyalties explain it. -“轉換”的論文（也就是在艱難的時刻）分離的選民從他們的傳統共和黨的黨派;這裡轉移的忠誠解釋。
Either way, political leaders respond, strive to win and/or hold their support, and they enacted social relief measures in the 1930s and 1960s.無論採用哪種方式，政治領袖的回應，爭取及/或舉行他們的支持，和他們制定的社會救濟措施，在1930年代和1960年代。
More is in play as well as voters by themselves have little influence over policy.更重要的是在發揮以及為選民本身沒有多大的影響力的政策。 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，政界人士需要廣泛的多數，並建立他們需要避免衝突，建立共識和打擊熟悉的呼籲，繁榮，上帝，國家和家庭。 As a result, electoral shifts alone don’t automatically produce bold new initiatives.因此，選舉的變化，單不自動產生新的大膽舉措。 In fact, they rarely do unless special times produce extraordinary responses.事實上，他們很少這樣做，除非特殊的時代產生非同尋常的反應。 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世紀30年代和20世紀60年代，破壞性的抗議活動和潛在的體制障礙得到羅斯福和約翰遜行事相當不同，比他們有正常的條件。
Under the right circumstances, protest movements are powerful and provide the impetus for social reform.根據權利的情況下，抗議運動，並提供強大的動力，為社會改革。 “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. “的緊迫性，團結，和戰鬥力衝突產生出鮮明的運動能力，作為政治溝通” ，至少在簡短的時間， “遊行，集會，罷工和停產，可以打破壟斷的政治話語，否則舉行的政客和傳媒“他們可以把重要的問題，以前列，並獲得政客（出於恐懼）來解決這些問題。 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.