A time for revolt?

[Gamb1e]

I was conversing with some colleagues recently and we came upon the topic of communism which led almost immediately to how would we make it work? We finished the conversation and parted ways. I continued thinking about it for some time. I then thought about when we would or even expect the time of revolt?

So mainly my question is this, what are usual presets before a country starts revolting?

A collection of things to determine

-Current economic conditions

-Demographic that is suffering

-Past historical revolution happenings and events

-Determining current acts (ex; stimulus package, energy rebates) outcomes and progress

-If a revolt would to occur, how would we respond? (As a political party)

-If a revolt would to occur, how would we respond? (As a country)




I guess this article is really just asking is it really that far out of the question that this type of event is in the near future?

[h9socialist]

Good questions Comrade -- ones that are certainly recurrent in Left-wing history. The short answer is that revolutions become ripe when a confluence of historical forces make the existing order vulnerable to overthrow . . . AND (and this is important) when revolutionary forces position themselves to both recognize and take advantage of the situation. Today, I think the first requirement is satisfied . . . The second is not. Also, the new institutions of the new society need to have incubated and be ready to replace the old.

[Dust Bunnies]

Many times there are opportunities for us to make massive gains. The problem is our divisions, until Marxists can reunite a Marxist revolution won't occur. Sectarianism is one of our biggest enemies.

[nuisance]

Revolt starts with small acts of sabotage and subversion. Direct action is contagious, creating solidarity through disobience. There is always time for revolt and agitation. Waiting around for the 'right time' (whenever that is) is complaency, we learn and influence through action and participation far more than reading and waiting. We are the oppressed and it is about time we fought back.

[Red Economist]

I was conversing with some colleagues recently and we came upon the topic of communism which led almost immediately to how would we make it work? We finished the conversation and parted ways. I continued thinking about it for some time. I then thought about when we would or even expect the time of revolt?

So mainly my question is this, what are usual presets before a country starts revolting?

A collection of things to determine

-Current economic conditions

-Demographic that is suffering

-Past historical revolution happenings and events

-Determining current acts (ex; stimulus package, energy rebates) outcomes and progress

-If a revolt would to occur, how would we respond? (As a political party)

-If a revolt would to occur, how would we respond? (As a country)




I guess this article is really just asking is it really that far out of the question that this type of event is in the near future?

This is a very simple question ask, but extremely difficult to anzwer with any degree of certainty. I have been trying to anzwer this question for over two years now; my own personal anzwer is that there should be one in the next 5-10-20 years and it MAY be the 'big' one. but this is still best guess work. and my current anzwer is only something I've arrived at within the past month or so. so, sorry, but this will be a long-ish anzwer. (I hope I have made it as clear as possible)

This next bit is first of all entirely expiremental and could be violently wrong- but is heavily relient on the Marxist Method. Trotsky tried to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 'Revolution Betrayed' (1936) and got one of his senarios close to the real collapse of the USSR in the 90's- which as a 50-60 year gap is still very impressive. Lenin and Trotsky had also tried to predict socialist revolution in Russia (with success, although they did kind of 'rig' it a bit) and in Europe (complete failure- Germany went Facsist, not 'Stalinist/Bolshevik').

the cause of a Socialist Revolution is a question of;

a) when capitalism lost it's ability to carry the process of development
b) when is socialism ready to take it's place.

a) capitalism is a social and economic system built upon the scarcity of capital (Machinery, factories, transport, communications etc), (which then leads inturn to private ownership of that capital, competition between such owners over the scarce resoruces, and an 'anarchic' system of distribution based on exchange according to a private value system (i.e money).
so, when capitalism has produced such a high scientific, technological and economic basis, that the only cause of capital scarcity is the uneven level of development of capitalism itself (i.e world poverty, monopoly, or 'the class system') it is effecitvely a 'historically bankcrupt' system.

in concrete terms; Watch Robotics! when Capitalism can produce machines that are equal to the productive capacity of the average workers, then it in turn abolishes 'wage slavery' which is the foundation of it's own system and makes 'labour' as such unnessacary and capital abundent. (this is an 'idealised' system, and so could means that revolution could arrive before fully developed robotics, since the social tensions and unemployment could just be too much).

[it should be noted, that capitalism in abolishing labour as such, also abolishes it's allies- the 'labour arisitcoracy' or middle classes, as well as the peasentry and the petit bourgeoisise (shopkeeper types) it has no need of them what so ever!]

b) socialism is the transisitionary stage before communism, but after private property has been abolished by the Revolution. Socialism Unifies the social and economic system into a single unit and inturn resolves the uneven development caused by capitalism itself after it has abolished the blocking mechanism of private property.
the internet is therefore crucial here; essentially capitalism basis is like the printing press. it is something physical, something which can be 'owned' by excluding other people from using it.

the internet on the otherhand is not a physical object which can be locked in a confined space. it is not controlled by any single computer, but is a network of all the computers connected to it. ANYONE can access it as long as there are more computers out there as far as I Know.

the internet therefore requires an economic strucutre built on equal access to the means of production, and a system of social/democratic control of such capital. it is an instrument of unification and Democracy! essentially- it is the basis of communism. things like free ware, piracy and downloads come into conflict with private property and copyright legislation because it is a network of equal sharing information, as opposed to a centralised dissemination of information (as you get with a TV, which is what frightened Orwell so much).



the final piece of this is the actual 'timing' as such. Capitalism develops in un-even fits and starts, through boom and bust and technologies develop in an un-even way. a russian economist, 'Kondratiev', talks of 'long wave' cycles lasting 50 or 60 years. we are currently in the third such cycle (?) (the 'digital revolution'). the next technology would of course be robotics;

capitalism needs cheap- but highly skilled labour, we see it in education policies (e.g. tuition fees which place the cost of education of the student, a more bussiness orientated approach to education, 'flexable skills' and the like (I'm talking about the UK in case your wandering, I would guess china is doing something similar!) and of course immigration which uses up the old soviet blocs surplus of skilled workers, for depressed wages and etc. each of these is only a temporary solution to a major problem in the system; the complixty of the tasks required of workers is much higher, the technology is more pervasisve and all embracing- but it has to be cheap, inorder for capitalism to work!

so, the 'revolution' as such would take place either at the end of the current cycle, which started about 1970/1980, at the early or middle phase of the next cycle. based on everything I've said before hand, we're talking 2020-2040 at the latest.

IF the Internet is incomptable with Capitalism, then we could be talking much less- years perhaps. The Iranian Protests and the Riots in Western China used the internet to organise so this suggests it is a possibility, but so far nothing 'socialist' has been done through the internet I know of. I am currently watching for any 'soviets' created on the internet that would suggest socialism is on it's way, but it has to be preceeded by a large amount of political and strike activity to happen and also 'mutinies' to be truley effective. (as what happened in Russia in Febuarary, July and October 1917).

[Pogue]

If you look at history this stuff can have a tendency to just happen. As revolutionaries all we can do is try to build organisations ready to deal with situations when they arise and agitate for them also.

[Pol Pot]

there are 2 main typologies of revolutions:
-the western type: where the current system is crashing and the radical opposite movement gains mass support and starts a revolutions: ideal example french rev. and soviet rev.
-the easter type where the current system is undermined threw protracted violence until they finnaly are defeated in violence and taked over (although the existing system would not have crashed down by itself), the ideal examples: chinese maoist civil war and cambodian civil war.

For that evaluation the only things that is likely to ensure a revolution in west is for capitalism to begin failing big time, for people to see it and start joining radical groups 'en masse.

[griffjam]

For that evaluation the only things that is likely to ensure a revolution in west is for capitalism to begin failing big time, for people to see it and start joining radical groups 'en masse.

“I have often heard reformers say that the working class does not revolt because it is not yet wretched and starving enough, and that the sooner economic conditions get worse the sooner they will revolt. This is another wrong conception of men and conditions. Take the coal miners, the most ill-paid and ill-treated wage workers in existence. To try to describe the conditions of the miners of Western Pennsylvania is to attempt the impossible. In many places grown men, with families, have not been able to earn more than $1.50 a week. They are herded together in miserable, filthy hovels, twelve or fifteen people occupying one room; for how else can they pay the rent? Yet these men do not revolt, and never will. But when I reached the districts where they earned $5 and $6 a week, I found them carrying themselves with some pride and self respect, and open to ideas. It is therefore an unpardonable mistake to sit with folded hands awaiting the development of things to such a state that it will be too late to act. Men with empty stomachs do not fight for freedom. They fight for bread; it is useless to appeal to the overfed, but still less use to appeal to the underfed.” -Emma Goldman, “A Short Account of My Late Tour,” Solidarity, July 15, 1898

[griffjam]

Is it hardship that drives people to rise up against tyranny? Can you count on people to revolt when things get too tough?

No, that hasn’t been reliable: when mere survival under the whip is demanding enough, revolt is stifled as often as provoked.

So is it improved living conditions, which give people more time and energy to consider their situation and act accordingly? In the 1960s, when the standard of living increased along with leisure time, it seemed that people became more rebellious rather than less. Does that mean the first task of would-be revolutionaries is to be reformists? Should we focus our energy on incremental improvements, so one day things will be easy enough to undertake more fundamental changes?

Unfortunately, that hasn’t proved effective either: many a generation has been bought off with a share of the spoils of oppression, even of their own oppression. As often as not, reform campaigns consume more energy than they produce. Worse, whenever revolutionary struggles come close to victory, reformists rush to hijack them, negotiating peace (i.e., a return to business as usual) between insurgents and their former masters—perhaps accomplishing some of the reforms that were impossible without open revolt, but at the cost of that revolt and the greater objectives it might have obtained. Reform campaigns are a pressure valve; at best, the momentum they build up can carry over into more thoroughgoing efforts, but it is the momentum that matters, not the material gains won—that is, unless you’re one of those people who thinks it’s fine and dandy for the world to be reduced to strip mines, strip malls, and strip clubs, so long as everyone can afford their wares.

What fuels insurrections, then, if not suffering or its alleviation? What inspires people to make dramatic changes in their own lives and the world around them?

I bet my bottom dollar it’s contradictions. When the tension between the lives people live and the lives they wish they lived becomes too great, when they can imagine alternatives and see proof that these are possible, things start to happen. When discontent is brewing but few are ready for all-out civil war, perhaps the most important thing revolutionaries can do is emphasize those tensions, intensify the contradictions with a propaganda of desire that encourages people to demand more than the status quo delivers. People are distraught and disappointed with the disasters of capitalism and patriarchy by the restless billion; everyone cherishes dreams of a better life that seems impossible. By publicly validating those desires and offering small examples of how to fulfill them, we can help each other come out of hiding.

This is not particularly complicated in communities that are overtly oppressed, although it is the most logistically difficult there: it requires demonstrating that some of the challenges of survival can be solved collectively and through collective resistance. But this approach can also be applied in other contexts—wherever a secretary stares longingly out the window, wherever a lover wishes she could speak freely about her attraction to others, wherever a grandmother languishes forgotten by her family. If our critique of wealth and power is accurate—that is, that they are not as fulfilling as sharing and partnership—everyone in this society has a stake in transformation, not just the losers of the power game.

[Steve_j]

So mainly my question is this, what are usual presets before a country starts revolting?

Nice question and something i have never thought that deeply about. My knowledge regarding the details of the historical circumstances that led to past revolts is pretty thin in my book. But each situation was different, as is ours.

The way that i see it (speaking generally)


-Current economic conditions

Although the number of people who have gone from worring about having the latest ipod to worring about keeping their home has increased, i would say we are not there yet. But i do think it will be the the key factor for the US and Europe.


-Demographic that is suffering

Relates to the above, despite mass pay cuts, reposesions and redundencies i think people have hope that things will get better, so they still have faith in the system. Untill that hope is shattered i dont think enough people will be ready to reject the system. I think the way things are going, increasingly shittier jobs for shittier pay wont spark revoult anytime soon. If people have a job they will generally be too busy trying to keep their jobs and pay the rent that they wont be ready to accept an alternative.


-Past historical revolution happenings and events

I think although the past is relevant, and there is lots to be learnt about the succes and mistakes involved, i think quite alot of leftists are too dogmatic about past revolts and the strains of ideology that were involved. We are not in the Russia, Cuba or China of the yester years.


-If a revolt would to occur, how would we respond? (As a political party)

Well i couldnt comment in regards to as a political party, but as individuals and as a society I would hope we have already been successfully undermining the established authorities by filling the void and providing communities with a working alternative at a grass roots level. Ie opening youth centres, public food programs, encouraging worker control, supporting people who refuse to pay rent, providing services for the elderly ect so that by when the time comes people will be willing and able to cast of the current system. I think ideally the revolt should primarily be the expansion and rapid development of these programs that are already inplace and will hopefully result in the complete takeover of industry and public services.


-If a revolt would to occur, how would we respond? (As a country)

Im not sure what you mean by that, im sure there will be a huge polarisation of the people in the country. Obviously by this stage huge numbers of people will have become politically active, but i think that most people will go with who ever is keeping them safe and fed. Some will still have faith and yern for the glory days of the capitalist system, others will sadly look for a scape goat and blame the jew or the arab or who ever fascism decides is the causing all the problems.

This leads to another factor worth looking at aswell, the rise of the far right. Not sure sure where its at in the states, but they are gaining political ground in europe. As they gain more power it will push some people further left. This could really accelerate things but in a bad way. Their succes relates to the failings of both capitalism and left. We need to make sure that any revolt is our revolt, and not some fucking race war that these bastatrds on storm front have been dreaming up.





Revolt starts with small acts of sabotage and subversion. Direct action is contagious, creating solidarity through disobience. There is always time for revolt and agitation. Waiting around for the 'right time' (whenever that is) is complaency

Whilst i would agree there is always time for revolt and agitation, those acts do need to be the rights acts in acordance with the time and place they occur. Otherwise the action is all too easily taken out of context and discredited, backfiring and further alienating us from the majority.


Many times there are opportunities for us to make massive gains. The problem is our divisions

Couldnt agree more

Recent example would be the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The left spoke out and said it was all lies, at one point we had millions around the world on the streets (before the wars even started). Years later we were right in everything that we said. It was a brilliant opportunity.

The body count is rising but where have all those people and their anger gone? Sure the Republican Party is out, New Labour will go, the liberal party is out ect ect But except for a few flare ups over Gaza, next no one is on the streets anymore...

And of more importance how many of them have rejected the representative democracy and capitalist system that was at fault?

[nuisance]

Whilst i would agree there is always time for revolt and agitation, those acts do need to be the rights acts in acordance with the time and place they occur. Otherwise the action is all too easily taken out of context and discredited, backfiring and further alienating us from the majority.
Actions against the status quo are most likely going to be discredited and misrepresented by the media, where as illformed, reformist or madcap, that is why the strength of our struggle and actions is community and workplace action.
I don't think that revolutionaries should act on behalf of a party or organisation- which are outside of the class- but as one with the people they engage with, building affinities for action in the community and workplace, aswell as larger more coordinated groups and activities that should network, and perhaps federate if this is more benefical, with similar groups around the locality, country and world, aswell as helping organise similar groups. Through this, libertarian ideas can be spread by action, word of mouth and propaganda- opposed to relying of media outlets of the bourgeoisie. Action also isn't just integral for the spreading of our ideals but it serves as a learning curb for ourselves, meaning we can alter and ajust our activities to what works best through experience.