Revolutionary Catalyst

[Pogue]

Well I'll start with examples of revolutions in history. We had 1905 and 1917 in Russia. Now both but 1917 specifically was created because the bourgeoisie entered into a war which caused the conditions in Russia to plummet so alot of conscripted soldiers were pissed off and there were huge food shortages spreading desperations in already poor areas. This basically boiled over into a period of intense class struggle which would naturally lead to revolution, which it did.

Then 36 in Spain. Awful conditions in the country again combined with a large base of revolutionary with the catalyst being government betrayals and a turbulent time.

Basically these revolutions happened through poor conditions mixed with the right amount of the right ideas being spread by revolutionaries.

Now most of Europe today the living standards are not so low. There are some really poor situations in some places sbut on the whole its alot better than it was back then. Like in Britain, which, despite being in a revolution at the moment, alot of people are relatively comfortable. Obviously theres the huge problem of the unemployed that we see in capitalisms recessions, but say this recession ended and there was a 'boom' again as there has been in the past, we see relative 'peace' in the class war, i.e. levels of class struggle, strikes etc, are relatively low.

I want to know how we can see ourselves making a revolution in more developed countries when often the living standards are relatively 'good'. I believe that a revolution will emerge when theres a natural period of struggle which has the right revolutionary influence, and it then eculates. Now in order for the conditions and periods of struggle to develop, there needs to be some sort of event thats heightens class struggle. Like in 1979 with the Winter of discontent as a recent example, but a more radical and better one, as I said before, 1917 in Russia. People basically lose their comfort zone as the things they rely on which gave their lives pleasure disappear, and they become desperate and revolutionary ideas become more appealing. This is a period of struggle that happens under capitalism and has contiually emerged in history.

Now I am pretty sure most people on this board would argue that revolutions spring out of these moments. Now in less economically developed countries where the wages and living conditions are truly awful, the conditions for the period of struggle are there, i.e. people are literally dying of poverty. Its awful, as we all know. I'm talking about places like in the shanty towns near Dubai and the like. In these areas, revolutionary ideas, socialist ideas, will be more easily taken on board than say, the most wealthist town in the English countryside in Surrey or something, because the reality is there, whereas in an time of boom in a wealthier nation, they will be likely to emerge as capitalism is seen to be 'working' for these people. But permantely in these less developed country, its not working, and it'll continue to not work. There will always be this mega exploitation as long as there is capitalism.

In these areas, if a workers movemen built up to challenge the bourgeoisie, it'd be brutally crushed, especially in those third world countries with exceptionally right wing governments who would just break strikers, organised labour, with absolutely shameless brutality, etc. So here if you could kick off class struggle it'd gather momentum quickly because of the realities and natural bourgeois response. It'd take a catalyst, perhaps after years of struggle and the strengthening of the movement, a major event, which would finally make this anger boil over, as happened in Russia in 1917 (Kornilov's Coup/general conditions of the war), 1905 (The massacre on Bloody Sunday) and 1936 (more general, but the fascist uprising, government response/lack of it, etc). But the struggle is almost permanently there and if the revolutionaries organise well their ideas could naturally take hold.

In the more developed countries its not so much the case. We have social welfare, higher wages, unions, etc. These do act as pacifiers to an extent, that much is obvious. For example, someone (and I appreciate its not the majority of people but its just an example) with a mortage and a nice car and kids in education with no major threat of house reposession is less likely to be motivatsed to participate in an socialist revolutoinary than say a worker surviving on only bread raitons each day who has been out of work for years or something. Now what I am interested in is how the intial steps towards building a period of major class struggle will come about. I think it'd take something quite major to galvanise alot of people, especially people in fairly well-paying graduate jobs (by fairly well paid I mean in relation to living in squalor, i.e. these people have the money to afford some luxuries, can afford to go to the pub, go on holiday, etc). Because quite simply at the moment alot of people are too comfortable. I don't mean this is a bad thing or its selfish - obviously not, as a communist I want everyone to live in comfort. Nor do I assume everyone has it wonderful. I know people work hard and alot of people are one paycheck from poverty, and I know alot of people can't afford luxuries, but the majority of people are not living and working in absolutely awful near-death conditions from which there is no escape.

So what I'm saying is how do you foster revolutionary class conciousness amongst people who are leading mroe comfortable lives? What would it take?
Would it take a major recession like the current one.
Will this recession galvanise struggle?
Would it take a major global war?
Will it take the wholescale developement of the third world, leading to the cheap labour western companies gained from this mega exploitation disappearing?
Is the relative wealth of most people in developed countries entirely linked to imperialist exploitation of the third world, or are they gained from concessions gained entirely through struggle in the past (NHS, wage increases through strikes). Basically, what developed the west, giving alot mroe comforts and a higher standard of levelling?

Fundamentally, do things have to get desperate here for a revolution to happen? Do schools need to close, millions more people of all jobs losing their jobs, even more repossessions, or pensions completely being wiped away by companies?

One idea I have is that revolution will come about through the struggle of the class on a defensive level. I.e. current living standards will be attacked, through price hikes, job cuts etc, and this will scare and anger people, causing an upsurge in class struggles and class conciousness, which will begin to spread radical opposition outside of just unions of party with wildcats, general strikes and international class solidarity. This is specifically for the first world. In the third world I think its down to the spreading of the right ideas, and then a catalyst.

These are just some of my thoughts as I was thinking about the nature of capitalism and conditions in the developed countries. I think our living satndards would have to be attacke done way or another to form a defensive reaction which would eventually evolve into a revolutionary movement. It'd have to be global too.

What do you all think? Do you agree with the need of an direct and major attack on people worldwide leading to a defenive situation eventually becoming offensive and revolutionary? How do you think this attack would happen (recession leading to jobs cuts, massive developement of the third world, etc)? Or maybe you see a revolution in the developed countries happening more over political issues than material/economic deprivation, such as a war, annoyance with government, authoritarianism, etc?

[Pogue]

bump

[AvanteRedGarde]

Like me get this straight. Workers in the so-called 'developed world' (a faulty as fuck word), need to have their material conditions attacked, including cuts to wages, loss of pensions, etc, in order to pursue to your fantasy of a revolution.

Isn't this "anti-worker?"

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to call a spade a spade- and say that the vast majority of First World workers, almost all of which fall into the 6-15% of the world, are themselves indirect exploiters whom (obviously) have little to no immediate stake in revolution: a fact which is expressed through their own type class consciousness.

Why not just advocate for the struggles occurring today and help advance them into genuinely revolutionary movements?

Or is that below you and your ideals?

[Pogue]

Like me get this straight. Workers in the so-called 'developed world' (a faulty as fuck word), need to have their material conditions attacked, including cuts to wages, loss of pensions, etc, in order to pursue to your fantasy of a revolution.



I was saying clearly class struggle needs to become more of a prominent issue which tends to happen when the class's conditions are attacked and they are forced to defend themselves. If you believe revolution is a fantasy I'd question your involvement on this board.



Isn't this "anti-worker?"



No, because I don't want it to happen, but I recognise capitalism causes it to happen and from such events class conciousness is developed and can be transformed into revolutionary conciousness, as has happened historically.


Wouldn't it be a lot easier to call a spade a spade- and say that the vast majority of First World workers, almost all of which fall into the 6-15% of the world, are themselves indirect exploiters whom (obviously) have little to no immediate stake in revolution: a fact which is expressed through their own type class consciousness.


This theory of being an indrect exploiter is absurd. They sell their wage to a boss who extracts profit from them. Some individual companies in the first wold only operate in the first world, and extract their profit from a) Paying workers for less than what they produce and b) Selling their stuff and taking the profit themselves rather than distributing it to all people involved in the generation of the wealth.

I'd disagree workers of the first world don't have a stake in revolution. I think people's lives would increase dramatically by an economy focused entirely on need not profit. It'd mean people would have solid employment, good education, good healthcare, would no longer have to live on crowded apartments, etc. I think people would also have a general stake in having control over their own lives and opposing the oppresion of hostile governments, as well as the general gains in living satndards brought about by a more sensibly and equitable distribution of wealth.

I don't understand what you mean by 'their own type of class conciousness'. I've seen workers solidarity amongst first world workers on numerous strikes or disputes I've been involved in. I myself am a class conciouss worker (or was, me and alot of colleages lost our jobs due to recession based company cuts a few months ago). In history, like in France 68, we've seen class conciouss workers expressing workers solidarity. I also think alot of people here do see workers all over the world as fellow workers and do care about them. I know certainly I do, and alot of my friends and family.


Why not just advocate for the struggles occurring today and help advance them into genuinely revolutionary movements?

I do this, which is why I'm involved in the IWW, strikes, occupations and anti-war movements, Palestine movement etc. Because I wish for worldwide working class solidarity and unity amgonst oppressed and exploited people in the world, basically, international working class unity, which is party of my ideals which sadly not part of yours. I hope that working calss struggles here can become revolutionary in nature and can join with the struggles of our comrades across the world.


Or is that below you and your ideals?

My ideals, as I have stated, are international working class solidarity leading to a world revolution and an international communist society as the end goal of this. I'm active to this effect in a number of campaigns from protecting hospitals from privatisation and the workers who wuld lose their jobs there to anti-fascism, unionisation and opposing the G20 who so aptly want to fuck over the poor of the world, most norably the third world. I'd argue that its below your ideals as you'd reject the struggles of millions of workers simply because they happened to be born to a certain part of the world and that to you makes them 'exploiters'.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I was saying clearly class struggle needs to become more of a prominent issue which tends to happen when the class's conditions are attacked and they are forced to defend themselves. If you believe revolution is a fantasy I'd question your involvement on this board.

Revolution is obviously not a fantasy. We have see examples of revolutions over the past one hundred years in nearly every single continent. What we have not seen is a internationalist revolution in an imperialist country. As of yet, and insofar as its not on the horizon, this remains a fantasy.


No, because I don't want it to happen, but I recognise capitalism causes it to happen and from such events class conciousness is developed and can be transformed into revolutionary conciousness, as has happened historically. So you are saying that there needs to be significant attack of the western working class...in order for there to be a revolution or even a revolutionary movement.


This theory of being an indrect exploiter is absurd. Is it really? Why exactly?


They sell their wage to a boss who extracts profit from them. Some individual companies in the first wold only operate in the first world, and extract their profit from a) Paying workers for less than what they produce and b) Selling their stuff and taking the profit themselves rather than distributing it to all people involved in the generation of the wealth. Capital operates globally, regardless of one companies locality. Often times raw materials and components or imported. All of American natural wealth is stolen.

Most work in the First World is not in production of value, but rather the realization of profit. These are two very different things.



I'd disagree workers of the first world don't have a stake in revolution. I think people's lives would increase dramatically by an economy focused entirely on need not profit. It'd mean people would have solid employment, good education, good healthcare, would no longer have to live on crowded apartments, etc. I think people would also have a general stake in having control over their own lives and opposing the oppresion of hostile governments, as well as the general gains in living satndards brought about by a more sensibly and equitable distribution of wealth.
I notice you didn't say that workers are exploited by capitalist-imperialism and thus have a stake in getting rid of their exploiters. Instead, you highlight the stake of First World workers as part of things like alienation, 'good education,' etc as well as a productive theory of socialism where a 'rising tide raises all boats.' Additionally, insofar as the drive for profit has consequences such as collapse of natural ecosystems, you might as well say anyone, including the bourgeoisie, has an interest based on this vague sense.



I don't understand what you mean by 'their own type of class conciousness'. I've seen workers solidarity amongst first world workers on numerous strikes or disputes I've been involved in. I myself am a class conciouss worker (or was, me and alot of colleages lost our jobs due to recession based company cuts a few months ago). In history, like in France 68, we've seen class conciouss workers expressing workers solidarity. I also think alot of people here do see workers all over the world as fellow workers and do care about them. I know certainly I do, and alot of my friends and family.

Don't raise the except to challenge the rule. By in large, First World workers have a class consciousness which is suited for their specific role. They are passive, consumeristic and usually pretty narrowly focused. If people disagree, that's fine. But their certainly isn't an overwhelming stock of evidence which shows that First World workers share a revolutionary class consciousness with the vast majority of workers, located in the Third World.



I do this, which is why I'm involved in the IWW, strikes, occupations and anti-war movements, Palestine movement etc. Because I wish for worldwide working class solidarity and unity amgonst oppressed and exploited people in the world, basically, international working class unity, which is party of my ideals which sadly not part of yours.I want revolution and a new just world. I'm all for the best, most inclusive way to go about this. But history has proven that First World workers are simply not interested in revolutionary internationalist struggle. There is, I found out later, a material reason behind it.



I hope that working calss struggles here can become revolutionary in nature and can join with the struggles of our comrades across the world.
Keep on hoping. I'll be working to promote unity between those who are most clearly exploited and oppressed by the current capitalist-imperialist, for its overthrow and the establishment of a new world based on equality between peoples.


My ideals, as I have stated, are international working class solidarity leading to a world revolution and an international communist society as the end goal of this. I'm active to this effect in a number of campaigns from protecting hospitals from privatisation and the workers who wuld lose their jobs there to anti-fascism, unionisation and opposing the G20 who so aptly want to fuck over the poor of the world, most norably the third world.
That's great and all, but you're part of a small minority. I don't see any evidence that your movements are growing, especially in compirison to the right. And again, there has to be a deeper reason for it.


I'd argue that its below your ideals as you'd reject the struggles of millions of workers simply because they happened to be born to a certain part of the world and that to you makes them 'exploiters'.This is ridiculous. What if I told you that you were opposing a certain part of the world just because they were born into specific families. The fact remains, there is a casual relationship between the Third and the First World. The former is exploited and impoverished by the latter. It's strictly about class and the relationship between various classes. It's not my fault that they, in many if not all respects, cut across geographic lines.

[Pogue]

Revolution is obviously not a fantasy. We have see examples of revolutions over the past one hundred years in nearly every single continent. What we have not seen is a internationalist revolution in an imperialist country. As of yet, and insofar as its not on the horizon, this remains a fantasy.

Which is why we're trying to build it.


So you are saying that there needs to be significant attack of the western working class...in order for there to be a revolution or even a revolutionary movement.


Recessions, wars, anything which tends to heighten class struggle. From periods of heightened class struggle, revolutions are born.


Is it really? Why exactly?

Oh come on. There is no case where a first world worker exploits anyone. They sell their labour for what is often a low wage. Its an absurd position and is baseless. There is no logic that could justify it. Am I meant to believe when I went to work and got paid 4.62 an hour I was exploiting someone?


Capital operates globally, regardless of one companies locality. Often times raw materials and components or imported. All of American natural wealth is stolen.

Most work in the First World is not in production of value, but rather the realization of profit. These are two very different things.

Theres a reason why the bourgeoise oppose strikes and pay rises, and thats because it chips away at their profit. Workers here clearly are still exploited, its the fundamentals of a how a business works. We also know the wages people get here are often barely enough to survive on, let alone thrive on.

I don't understand your fixation on western workers and how they're somehow greedy and expoliting the third world. You think me earning 4.62/h is the reason for the pvoety of the third world. I think its the fact that some individuals own billions, governments spend tirllions on arms, etc.


I notice you didn't say that workers are exploited by capitalist-imperialism and thus have a stake in getting rid of their exploiters. Instead, you highlight the stake of First World workers as part of things like alienation, 'good education,' etc as well as a productive theory of socialism where a 'rising tide raises all boats.' Additionally, insofar as the drive for profit has consequences such as collapse of natural ecosystems, you might as well say anyone, including the bourgeoisie, has an interest based on this vague sense.

I hilighted all the reasons why first world workers have an itnerest in revolution. I think it hilights how ridiculous your politics are in that you say the bourgeoisie to have an interest in a thirst world communist revolution because it'd help the environment. Do you think that'd stop them fighting back?


Don't raise the except to challenge the rule. By in large, First World workers have a class consciousness which is suited for their specific role. They are passive, consumeristic and usually pretty narrowly focused. If people disagree, that's fine. But their certainly isn't an overwhelming stock of evidence which shows that First World workers share a revolutionary class consciousness with the vast majority of workers, located in the Third World.

This is based on an arogant and insulting assumption, and is similar to me saying 'Third world workers aren't revolutionary because they're all religious and so don't care about class exploitation and will never have a revolution'. People are pacified and restricted by certain things the bourgeoisie class toss them but the concrete realities of capitalism are still there. I'm a revolutionary socialist but I like buying the odd thing here and there. Doesn't stop me getting fucked over by and annoyed with capitalism, and it certainly doesn't stop me wanting to overthrow it.

Whose to sya third world workers aren't also controlled by consumerism? Or religion? Or maybe some of them have the attitude of 'Things could be better, but its not that bad'. All of these are things which hold back a revolution. They've always existed. Kautsky noted that workers back in the early 20th century in some of the most appalling conditions dedicated alot of time and passion into football over politics. Does that mean they too had no revolutionary potential?

It takes revolutionary ideas to create a revolution as well as a period of struggle. This is a universal rule.


I want revolution and a new just world. I'm all for the best, most inclusive way to go about this. But history has proven that First World workers are simply not interested in revolutionary internationalist struggle. There is, I found out later, a material reason behind it.

History shows the majority of the world aren't interested in revolutionary internationalist struggle. But what about France in 1968? The recent uprising in Greece? Spain (had an empire back then) in 1936?

The point is, the working class worldwide doesn't rise up on its own, and doesn't rise up unless the material conditions are right for them rising up. We need to develop class struggle worldwide wherever it exists and give it a revolutionary nature, because currently, very few people in the world are interested in revolution.

Excactly where has history proven Third World workers are interested in revolutionary internationalist struggle?


Keep on hoping. I'll be working to promote unity between those who are most clearly exploited and oppressed by the current capitalist-imperialist, for its overthrow and the establishment of a new world based on equality between peoples.


I'm sure you will. What will you do when you've made a large proportion of the world rise up but us spoilt First Worlders are still in the supermarkets, out of interest?

I'll be working on getting the most exploited to carry out international class struggle too. The difference is I wont exclude someone because they happen to have a television.


That's great and all, but you're part of a small minority. I don't see any evidence that your movements are growing, especially in compirison to the right. And again, there has to be a deeper reason for it.

I don't see the third world worker's movements growing either. I do see strikes over here, though. The right is picking off disenfranchised people, but not the majority of them. We just need to get our arses into gear.


This is ridiculous. What if I told you that you were opposing a certain part of the world just because they were born into specific families. The fact remains, there is a casual relationship between the Third and the First World. The former is exploited and impoverished by the latter. It's strictly about class and the relationship between various classes. It's not my fault that they, in many if not all respects, cut across geographic lines.

Your analysis is illogical and unscientific. What ever happened to class analysis? The whole world is exploited by the class system and the ruling class and its interests.

[nightazday]

the argument here is on the intelligence of the American worker, since the Reagan administration most "working" job were transferred to other countries the ones still here are mostly occupied by either from people of countries crippled by America or puppets of the reactionary forces

for the last argument of being born into exploiting others you have to wonder if the inheritance system is exploitation or not