On a Bottom-Up-Top-Down Revolution

In his book, Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism, Steven M. Buechler argues that there will be no more revolutions in the 21st century due to the development of advanced capitalism. Specifically, Buechler attempts to show an increase in the complexity of society – with the disappearance of class-based social movement and its replacement by many identity movements – in a post-modern world (8) and a shift in system and social integration dynamics – the government's ability to provide both materially and normatively – in a Post-Fordist world (81). These two shifts, along with the development of formidable reform filters, fragmented the social world beyond a point where revolutionary forces could overthrow a powerful, organized government. However, I believe that Buechler may have overlooked the possibility of a revolution brought about by the unification of a significant number of people brought together by vast economic inequality.

So how could a revolution come about in the U.S. if Buechler showed the many forces that would work against it? Social movements in core countries require significant numbers of people (Scott 28 Aug) with significant resources (Buechler 73). Buechler's points explain why these two forces, people and resources, could not come together easily, but he may have overlooked the possibility of an issue that would mobilize the middle class, a group with both significant numbers and resources, toward revolting. In a sense, a revolution of this sort would be a return to an older, class-based social movement, yet the feasibility of such an event becomes plausible if a set of possible, even if not likely, conditions were met.

The first of these conditions would, in essence, be a political opportunity through the occurrence of a societal crisis. Buechler writes that societal crises come about when there are crises involving both social and system integration (80-3). In the High-Fordist era, crises could come about because social integration, or normative social meaning, was inextricably linked to system integration, or material provision. Simply, normative value came from material wealth. In Post-Fordism, this was no longer possible as the two were disconnected through colonization of the life world – the controlling of normative decisions by political and economic powers (Buechler 83-5). Buechler admitted, however, that current advanced capitalist societies were still "crisis prone" even if not in the same way as during High-Fordism (82).

However, on the most basic of levels, the two integrations are forever connected. Social integration and system integration are equally affected when discontent arises over the most basic human needs such as health care, food, and shelter. It is this point that Buechler seems to neglect and where the possibility of a revolution hypothetically begins. If Post-Fordism was the loss of materialism as a means of social integration (Buechler 86-7), I would propose that Post-Post-Fordism is the loss of basic human needs for the population, causing social and system crises. If Post-Post-Fordist conditions were met, a revolution seems possible due to the dual crisis caused by the link of social and system integration at the most basic level.

The early stages of such a world may already be in place as the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. If the poor have no resources left, the rich will have to get richer from the not-as-poor, or in other words the middle class, next. It is at this stage that the middle class enters as a key constituent of the revolution. While the term "middle class" no longer signifies a specific group within one income range (Buechler 127-8), it can still be defined as a group with "relative privilege" (Buechler 129). In a Post-Post-Fordist world, the "relative privilege" would not only become more pronounced as more and more people failed to provide for themselves, but it would become threatened by the super-rich who controlled the economy and government. As Buechler wrote, the colonization of the life world – along with the creation of a Post-Fordist world – disconnected people's control of the government, moving power to a small group with many resources (83-4). As the "relative privilege" became increasingly threatened, the middle class would have its identity threatened if not weakened and would feel the need to self-define through activism (Buechler 130). Furthermore, faced with fewer resources than before, the need for significant numbers of allies would increase and the increasingly similar predicament and disgruntlement of the lower classes would provide a perfect candidate. With no way to work within the system due to colonization of the life world, revolution would be the only possible response left.

The rich getting richer trend could quickly – if it has not already – create a cavernous gap between the haves and have-nots. While many revolutions in the past have fought against such neither/nor, overly-simplified, binary thinking ("Defintions"), many older social movements and revolutions – especially those fighting colonial powers – have required such thinking to mobilize a group large enough to fight an oppressive system. If millions of people were experiencing social and systemic crises while millions more were threatened with crises of their own, a have/have-not frame of thinking could mobilize massive numbers of people – likely, enough for a revolution. The have/have-not approach would also temporarily remove the need for a movement that allowed for intersectionality. All other identities would be so greatly trumped by the have-not identity that, even if not permanently, a significant number of people could be mobilized. Still, it would be important for leaders of middle-class backgrounds to commit class suicide in order to successfully unite the culturally diverse movement (Scott 4 Dec). While Marxist readers could argue that this followed Marx's predictions, they would need to ignore the different historical condition in which class acted as a unifying identity but not the single-handed cause of a revolution.

To this point, I have said little as to how such a revolution could occur. Even though a large number of people might be mobilized, this would not exempt them from the attempts at government reform filters to channel their angers into systemic outlets for discontent. In the latter half of the 20th century, the world witnessed tens of bottom-up revolutions, both violent and nonviolent, that worked outside of the system. The success of top-down revolutions, though, must not be forgotten. If a majority of people were to wish to revolt against the United States government, unless the democratic system had already been entirely dismantled, a top-down revolution could occur after first working within the democratic framework filled with reform filters. In other words, the election of a president and Congress with a unified agenda could dismantle itself and start over, much in the same way the Nazi revolution, at least technically, rose up legally through the electoral system only to entirely change the government structure once in power. To state it in analytical terms, a bottom-up social movement would work toward the goal of a top-down revolution. The changes required to systematically undo the misguided and disproportionate distribution of economic and political power would involve massive structural change. So drastic would the change be, that the old structure would be almost entirely dismantled, and a revolution – rather than a radical reform movement – would have occurred. For a revolutionary group, mobilized around the democratic principle of equal distribution of political and economic power, what better way could a revolution take place?

So what is preventing such a revolution from occurring? Other than the stated conditions not quite being met or perceived as being met, there is a form of oppression at work: taxes. The payment of taxes to the government is an example of the interlocking organization of system and social integration that is not as independent as Buechler argues. Taxes are both a monetary and symbolic means of entrusting the government with a portion of one's well-being, and, since taxpaying is mandatory, the government implies a guarantee of normative and material compensation. When either part of well-being is not met, through inadequate means of compensation for work completed and taxes payed, discontent over both types of integration occurs.

In recent years, as the government has failed to uphold its guarantee of material and normative compensation with the disproportionate distribution of economic and political power, tax payment has continued with little complaint. In a sense, the view of workers as patriotic citizens who unquestioningly pay taxes regardless of their beliefs has been tacitly internalized by the American people. This tax-paying-duty could then be interpreted as a broad form of internalized oppression – especially seeing that it can be found at all levels of oppression, individual, institutional, and cultural (Scott 4 Dec). Other oppressive economic and political systems that involved social and system integration would obviously join taxes in jump-starting a revolution, taxes and its connection to work – one of the most common activities for an U.S. citizen – could serve as a symbol of the other problems. There is undoubtedly a tipping point for when such oppression will be recognized, either through education or self-recognition, and its discovery will bring the revolution one step closer to completion.

But for each step taken toward a revolution, the movement would face vehement opposition from parties with access to vast resources. The revolutionary movement could combat this in many ways. One way would be to solicit monetary donations from groups in other countries – much like foreign groups have received from the US government in previous years. While coalitions would not help during a democratic vote, they could help supply resources to mobilize masses before the actual vote occurred.

A second strategy could be to leverage the power held by anyone in a service position – a common position in a service economy. As inequality in society grows, the need for work does not decrease, leaving not only low level workers but managers and small business owners facing equally-drastic crises. The frequent contact between workers and consumers could be used to constantly remind a large proportion of the population of the occurring injustices. Just consider the effect of one grocery bagger who slipped a pamphlet into each bag, much less an entire store of baggers. In a digital age, human contact has become more powerful than ever and with so many jobs involving constant interaction with others, the possibility for dispersal of political information is immense.

In sum, a revolution, while seemingly unlikely within the framework that Buechler laid out in his book, could be accomplished if the trend of Fordism continued, creating simultaneous system and social crises. These crises, with a Post-Post-Fordist flavor as earlier defined, could reinstitute a binary class system of haves and have-nots, creating an environment where neither/nor thinking advantaged the revolutionary party by uniting many identities and classes into a single unit fighting for basic rights. While this exact set of conditions might seem improbable, they are all rooted in trends that can be observed today, and, maybe, someday in the future, as Marx smiles from the grave, we will observe a class-identity-driven, bottom-up-top-down revolution in response to existing and impending shortages of normative and material needs.

Works Cited

Author Unknown. Handout. "Definitions of Strategies of Resistance." Distributed by Kesho Scott in 20th Century Social Movements. 27 Nov 2006.

Buechler, Steven M. Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Scott, Kesho. SOC 275 20th Century Social Movements. Grinnell College, Grinnall, IA. 28 Aug 2006.

Scott, Kesho. SOC 275 20th Century Social Movements. Grinnell College, Grinnall, IA. 4 Dec 2006.