Revolution

[jake_dowse]

To my understanding the theories for revolution in Marxism and Marxist-Leninism revolve around a strong working class movement. Traditionally this would have been built upon large numbers of industrial workers. In the developed countries of today, manual labour is increasingly being sourced abroad, where they can then have no direct impact on the society which they provide for. There is still a working class in Britain but it is so divided that it does not see itself as one, Marx said that class only existed if the people within it knew that they part of it. If this is so how can strong working class movements (and therefore revolution) begin to materialise?

Is Revolution possible in Britain, or any other developed countries?

[Kovacs]

There is a working class everywhere, and it often fractures along racial lines in western societies. A highly mobile labour workforce made up from many different cultures undermines attempts at solid unionism/solidarity. This is not a criticism of multiculturalism but rather a criticism of rutheless capital that exploits economic and cultural differences by pitting worker on worker in some race to the bottom.

The oldest leftist issue is making once more the strong unionist solidarity we had pre-neoliberalism and making again a large force willing to fight the people who want a pliant and grateful workforce. Leftist rhetoric is not selling, but the principles can. It needs a re-defining of the selling points, not the principles.

[jake_dowse]

I am not talking about an issue on a fractured working class within a country but as to what happens if, due to globalisation, it fractures in a international context.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Yes of course revolution is possible. Now if a proletariat revolution is possible is impossible is to say. Workers in developed countries do not see themselves as oppressed unlike those of earlier revolutionary periods. From what i can tell the only way to make one materialize is to have workers come into themselves. The unions in major countries aren't fighting for workers nor educating them but instead they are just trying to defend their own dwindling power and what little the workers have left. I pretty much think that a straight workers revolution is impossible just because of the control asserted upon them by the capitalists.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In Britain, there is a more unique answer than in other countries, due to the different make up of our political system, our economic and social history since the early 18th century and the strange attitudes of many ordinary, and indeed working, people in this country.

For this reason, answering for Britain, I would say that revolutionary uprising is always a possibility. However, a more likely path to Socialism in Britain would be via the ballot box, in all honesty. A coalition of the entire left - from left wing Social Democrats such as Benn and Galloway to true revolutionary Socialists and Communists - would be a more realistic way to rid Britain of Capitalism. Obviously, this is an awkward path for a revolutionary to take.

Engels probably answers this question a lot better than me, in all honesty, but from my perspective Britain is not the ideal candidate for the origination of a revolution.

[Faust]

Revolution in first world countries will never be achieved through elections. The masses have been ensnared by the propaganda of the capitalist class, and are at best completely apathetic to our cause.

If we light the flame through real revolutionary struggle, they will follow us.

[革命者]

As far as Britain is concerned, revolution will never happen via the ballot box, for two reasons: firstly, the system of goverment is extremely undemocratic (and I was suprised to find that many Brits don't see that. It is probably pride of the first parliamentary democracy; like the US prides its "freedom"), or maybe I spoke to the wrong people. Secondly, a country with a monarch and a prime minister appointed by the crown can not really have a revolution. The queen can and has proven herself capable of side-lining the elected representatives, including the prime minister, if she sees fit.

So, at least the UK would have to end the monarchy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The single occupation held by the most people in North America is that of a truck driver... if they had a general strike or if US (or any other rich capitalist nation for that matter) dockworkers shut down shipping, the entire world's economy would be impacted.

While some blue collar work has moved to other countries, most of it has just moved to southern "right to work" states that have anti-union laws so I think the death of industrialism in "first-world" countries has been greatly exaggerated.

Here's the most common jobs in the US:


Retail salespersons
4,426,280 3.3% $12.04 $25,050 Cashiers
3,545,610 2.6 9.08 18,880 Office clerks, general
2,906,600 2.2 12.90 26,830 Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food
2,708,840 2.0 8.36 17,400 Registered nurses
2,542,760 1.9 31.31 65,130 Waiters and waitresses
2,371,750 1.8 9.41 19,580 Laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, hand
2,335,510 1.7 11.87 24,690 Customer service representatives
2,233,270 1.7 15.28 31,790 Janitors and cleaners, except maids and housekeeping cleaners
2,145,320 1.6 11.30 23,500 Stock clerks and order fillers
1,873,390 1.4 23,140 Secretaries, except legal, medical, and executive
1,872,070 1.4 14.42 29,990 Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks
1,855,010 1.4 16.25 33,800 General and operations managers
1,697,690 1.3 51.91 107,970 Truck drivers, heavy and tractor-trailer
1,672,580 1.2 18.62 38,720 Elementary school teachers, except special education

Aside from accountants and managers any of these occupations can be organized and everyone in these occupations has class interests that put them at odds with their employers. Many of these are grossly underpaid and have no benefits; jobs like janitors, food preparers, and waitresses suffer from low wages involved with racism and sexism. So in short, the ingredients for a radical working class movement are all here. What we desperately lack is grassroots and rank and file organization.

Globalization does have an impact and the bosses do play on this to threaten workers on both sides of the borders or oceans. This means that really we need to develop real internationalism to combat a globalized enemy. Right now concretely this means that radicals in the 1st world should be pushing hard against the rising anti-immigrant scapegoating happening in the US and Western Europe. Since we are small and not as connected to the union rank and file and can not influence most of the major unions in real ways we need to really propagandize about international solidarity and how it fits into capitalist globalization. Also the economic relationships between the 1st and 3rd world means that any revolution in one region of the world is going to have major impacts to connected nations. Now more than ever in history, "workers of all nations, unite" is an concrete imperative if we want to see an effective workers movement against capital.

[革命者]

Most industry has really been outsourced to lower-wage countries. But this has meant more logistics; so indeed we could still halt (multinational) trade.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Revolution in first world countries will never be achieved through elections. The masses have been ensnared by the propaganda of the capitalist class, and are at best completely apathetic to our cause.

If we light the flame through real revolutionary struggle, they will follow us.

You need to explain how workers apathetic to the means that the left parties in Britain use for election campaigning, will suddenly become receptive to our point of view. What should be done differently, in your opinion?

[Faust]

You need to explain how workers apathetic to the means that the left parties in Britain use for election campaigning, will suddenly become receptive to our point of view. What should be done differently, in your opinion?

I don't mean necessarily Britain, but all first world countries.
Here in Canada the majority of the population (nearly everyone I have spoken to anyhow) ends up voting for whoever will not do the most good, but who will do the least wrong.
These people are apathetic because they know no better, when they see that there is an alternative to their harmful system, they will turn to it, when they see people actually standing up and fighting for our cause... they'll follow.

We, as communists and socialists cannot get the attention of the people; we live in a society dominated by the capitalist upper class. They're propaganda machine is powered by the billions of dollars they take from the working class.

Ours is usually powered by volunteer work and donations, not exactly a worthy opponent to that of the capitalists.

We need to initiate direct action against the oppressors. I am not a pacifist, a peaceful revolution is preferable, but almost never possible. Especially not against the first world elites.

[Lyev]

Just a subsidiary point, but in Marx's writing and a lot of early Marxist/socialist writers the urban proletariat are traditionally portrayed as always working in industrial factories. A factory is not the only place the capitalist can exploit the worker. All that you need to do is apply the Marxist formula of: antagonism between labour and capital. This doesn't have to manifest itself in a factory. It can be in an office, school, shop, hospital, restaurant etcetera. Anyone who works under the eye of a greedy boss; anyone that works using someone else's means of production; anyone that is forced to sell their labour-power because they nothing else is a proletarian. So probably, still, most of the people in first world, developed countries loosely fit the criteria of "exploited" and "proletarian", if you get my point.

[Faust]

most of the people in first world, developed countries loosely fit the criteria of "exploited" and "proletarian", if you get my point.

I understand.
The exploited don't see it, which is the problem. We, as the revolutionaries, need to begin "reeducating" the masses; "traditional" propaganda, and propaganda of the deed are the only ways to raise class consciousness. The revolution will not just happen.

Like Che Guevara said "The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall."

[ZeroNowhere]

There is still a working class in Britain but it is so divided that it does not see itself as one, Marx said that class only existed if the people within it knew that they part of it.Hm, I do not recall this.

[robbo203]

Revolution in first world countries will never be achieved through elections. The masses have been ensnared by the propaganda of the capitalist class, and are at best completely apathetic to our cause.

If we light the flame through real revolutionary struggle, they will follow us.

With respect this doesnt make sense. Obviously you cannot have a revolution NOW because most people havent got a clue about communism let alone want it. But assuming they did have a clue and did want it would you still hold this opinion about elections? At the very least the electoral strategy has these advantages

1) it is a reasonably good indicator of the strength of the communist movement. Which means we would we know we had enough support to go over to communism

2) it invest the communist movement with the moral authority to proceed forward to communism. Opponents of communism would be less able to thwart it having beeen deprived of the moral authority to retain capitalism

3) It provides a convenient coordinating juncture for the changeover to a moneyless economy which by its nature cannot just be phased in

I find it a bit disturbing that you want people to "follow you" when part of the reason why people are "apathetic" in the first place is that they tend to leave it to leaders to do things for them. Surely we need people to reject the whole idea of leaders and followers and join with us to make a revolution?

[Faust]

With respect this doesnt make sense. Obviously you cannot have a revolution NOW because most people havent got a clue about communism let alone want it. But assuming they did have a clue and did want it would you still hold this opinion about elections? At the very least the electoral strategy has these advantages

1) it is a reasonably good indicator of the strength of the communist movement. Which means we would we know we had enough support to go over to communism

2) it invest the communist movement with the moral authority to proceed forward to communism. Opponents of communism would be less able to thwart it having beeen deprived of the moral authority to retain capitalism

3) It provides a convenient coordinating juncture for the changeover to a moneyless economy which by its nature cannot just be phased in

I find it a bit disturbing that you want people to "follow you" when part of the reason why people are "apathetic" in the first place is that they tend to leave it to leaders to do things for them. Surely we need people to reject the whole idea of leaders and followers and join with us to make a revolution?


Good points;
I would still hold my beliefs though, either way. I agree with you in that the education of the masses will be necessary for a full revolution, one such way is through propaganda and the like before revolutionary activities begin. Another way is to use the revolutionary activities as our propaganda. I do not believe that educating the masses will result in a communist party ever being elected; the current system is too undemocratic, too heavily influenced by the capitalist class.

I reply to your four points;

1) While it would be a good indicator of our strength, there would be other obvious indicators were we to begin a revolutionary struggle, for instance; things would actually begin to happen, real steps would be made towards a communistic society.

2) Moral authority is definitely a good thing, I counter this by reminding you of the horrors of capitalism, and reminding the masses of this would be one of our obvious tasks as revolutionaries. When the people see that no such thing will happen in a communistic society, A few moments of violence and action, for a future of peace, will make it justifiable. That answers the question of moral authority.

3) I do not agree with this point at all. Just as religion should be kept seperate from state, so too should business. This is not the case in the current electoral system. To run for election has become a business enterprise, only those with money and a willigness to stab someone else in the back will be successful, obviously, a communist party cannot participate within an election without participating in the very system we seek to remove; capitalism. Since we would be participating in capitalism, then we are not taking steps towards communism, but rather, we are going in the opposite direction. So it is therefore not a convenient coordinating juncture.

Also, I apologize if you found that disturbing and I realize that it was an error in wording. I mean following in the sense that the people would join us, like you have said. Not all of us will be suited to make decisions in strategy and the like, but those decisions will be democratic in their process. Each persons ideas should be considered.