Does A Revolution require Industrilisation?

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

In my history class earlier today we were discusing the Russian Revolution and my teacher said that a Marxist revolution can only really, properly occur in an industrilised nation.
To what extent is this true?
Please note that I mean a proper revolution, not the natural evolution to communism present in some 'primitive' cultures.

[Invincible Summer]

What do you mean by "Marxist revolution?"

I'd say though, that your teacher is confused. The Russian Revolution, as well as the revolutions in China and Cuba amongst others, were arguably Marxist or derivatives of Marxism. These countries were hardly industrialized.

Also, the question seems to be conflating "revolution" with "socialism/communism." The former can and is more likely to happen in less/non-industrialized nations with a weaker ruling class. However, the latter is more difficult, as socialism/communism requires industrialization and modernization to provide the proper infrastructure for the equal distribution of goods and resources, as well as preparation for post-scarcity.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

What do you mean by "Marxist revolution?" I mean like any revolution based on Marx, as opposed to other forms of communism or anarchism, or any other revoultion.


I'd say though, that your teacher is confused. The Russian Revolution, as well as the revolutions in China and Cuba amongst others, were arguably Marxist or derivatives of Marxism. These countries were hardly industrialized.
He argued that the differences between pure Marxism and Marxist-Leninist were partialy influenced by the degree of industrialisation, and that Marx's writings were primarily for use in richer, industrilised nations. He also argued that the USSR was infact not Communist - however that was irrelivent to his argument in regards to the revolution.

[The Douche]

The marxist concept of revolution dictates that only the proletariat can establish socialism/communism, and you can't have a proletariat without capitalism.

Russia did not have a majority proletarian population, so Lenin's arguement was the the proletariat could lead to peasantry in revolution. Some people agree with that, some people don't, other people don't think the proletariat is the only revolutionary class.

[bcbm]

of course not. revolution, that is the rediscovering and creation of a true human community, is possible at any time. those who believe that "industrialization" is necessary have historically tended to value machines more than workers, productivity more than creativity, control more than freedom. certainly industry can be pursued as a collective, non-coercive project by a liberated humanity, but it isn't a necessary precursor for achieving human community.

[Patchd]

There is a trend sometimes of placing the importance on modern 'first world' workers to bring a successful revolution and then have the rest of the world follow, but in this day and age, it seems more likely that we'll be seeing newly industrialised nations' doing so first and the Western world to follow. This isn't to diminish the importance of workers in Western nations, but just to say that with current militancy in places like Asia and South America, it seems more likely that workers there will successfully conduct a socio-economic revolution, and hopefully the workers' movement in Western nations will be large enough to follow and help provide technological developments and aid.

A revolution in low-industrialised regions could possibly be successful, I think only with the backing and technological development from industrialised worker-controlled regions. Technological development of industry in the 'third world' would help to diminish the need for labour. More free time :D

[bcbm]

Technological development of industry in the 'third world' would help to diminish the need for labour. More free time

historically, this idea has never really panned out... anywhere.

[Patchd]

I'm pretty high so sorry if I'm incoherent. But with the level of technological development we have now and that is seemingly continuing to develop, without cost-motive constraints for not introducing these technologies into the workplace, this could possibly be done, if it is, we'll see less need for labour, increased production, and more free time :D

How else could we achieve communism without the abolishment of mandatory labour, how else could we do it without technological development?

[Hit The North]

A revolution can happen in any conditions but socialism can only be built on the basis of an advanced mode of production.

The Bolsheviks first hope was that the revolutionary wave would sweep workers to power in the advanced capitalist powers so that a non-antagonistic economic development could happen in the Soviet Union. Failing that, the necessity to drive forward industrialisation under the pressure of surrounding hostile capitalist powers, provided the material basis for a retreat from proletarian democracy towards a social structure of rulers and ruled. Somewhere (I forget where), Leon Trotsky writes very candidly of the necessity to do this in the circumstances the Soviet Union faced.

[Invincible Summer]

historically, this idea has never really panned out... anywhere.

Well when industry is tied up with capitalism, you're only going to get technologies that benefit the system.

[Bitter Ashes]

Quite simply, there needs to be a means of production for the workers to seize.

If there's still a peasant class that is operating through thier own land, or cottage industries, then although hard worked, they'd actualy be more free than industrialised working class. If there was to be any kind of uprising or revolt, then it would not be about the means of production, but other political factors.

If after that, the peasants deciede to pursue industrialisation then they have two paths that they can take. They can either go down the road of capitalism and use industrialisation to create a surplus labour force and concentrate the means of production into the hands of the few, or they agree on public ownership of the new means of production, to reduce the working week and create a more relaxed working atmosphere, which would in theory create socialism. There is a third option too of not pursueing industrialisation at all, which would leave things as just the land owning peasant class society, albiet with different rulers (if any). It's be an improvement over capitalism, but it still wouldnt be socialism. Not sure what it'd be called tbh.

[chegitz guevara]

The precondition of socialism is sufficient production for everyones' needs to be met, at least marginally. This can only happen in a society with access to industrial production.

Hence, it is possible for a peasant revolution to build socialism, if there is already an industrialized workers society to provide them with the goods they need. Isolated and alone, a non-industrialized society cannot build socialism.

[Rjevan]

This should be in Learning. Moved.

[danyboy27]

In my history class earlier today we were discusing the Russian Revolution and my teacher said that a Marxist revolution can only really, properly occur in an industrilised nation.
To what extent is this true?
Please note that I mean a proper revolution, not the natural evolution to communism present in some 'primitive' cultures.

weird, russia wasnt industrialised until the end of the 5 year plan..

[Die Neue Zeit]

Key areas of the Russian Empire were, thanks to one of the more economically liberal Russian prime ministers, Sergei Witte. Moscow and St. Petersburg had factories, for example.

Industrialization still occurred during the Second Five-Year Plan, too. It's just that the bulk of the country's industrialization occurred during the First Five-Year Plan.

[bcbm]

Well when industry is tied up with capitalism, you're only going to get technologies that benefit the system.

yes, this is exactly what i was saying.

[ComradeOm]

In my history class earlier today we were discusing the Russian Revolution and my teacher said that a Marxist revolution can only really, properly occur in an industrilised nation. Be careful of the nuances here. Russia in 1917 was not an industrialised nation in that the capitalist mode of production was not yet entirely dominant and co-existed with the vestiges of feudalism. However it is often forgotten/ignored that late Tsarist Russia had nonetheless been in the process of industrialising for half a century and did possess a large (in absolute terms) and modern industrial base. The conditions for a proletarian revolution certainly did exist - just not throughout the entire country. The success of such a revolution is another matter entirely


those who believe that "industrialization" is necessary have historically tended to value machines more than workers, productivity more than creativity, control more than freedomThose who believe that "industrialization is necessary" have tended to view history through the prism of class struggle


historically, this idea has never really panned out... anywhereWell except for Europe and the US. That was pretty much the point of the eight hour day campaign :glare:

[bcbm]

Those who believe that "industrialization is necessary" have tended to view history through the prism of class struggle

which class was building industry in the ussr? china?

also this doesn't address my point at all.


Well except for Europe and the US. That was pretty much the point of the eight hour day campaign :glare:

a campaign undertaken by humans, not machines. industrialization itself did nothing to reduce labor hours; early industrial proletarians worked more hours than any other people in history and even with the eight hour day, workers in most of the industrialized world work a comparable number of hours to laborers in the middle ages.

[ComradeOm]

which class was building industry in the ussr? china?The working class. How could it be any other way?


also this doesn't address my point at all.I know, your 'point' was nothing more than bullshit sectarian baiting


a campaign undertaken by humans, not machinesWell, obviously. But then industrialisation is far more than simple machines or their use. It entails an enormous social and economic transformation and the creation of a new class. Machines did not demand shorter working hours - their operators did. And they were able to win this right because advances in technology and mechanisation allowed for vastly increased output. Today European workers enjoy 4-5 weeks off a year and yet the productive forces of their nations have never been higher


...and even with the eight hour day, workers in most of the industrialized world work a comparable number of hours to laborers in the middle ages.No they don't. Which was exactly the significance of the eight hour day - it was the first time in history when the vast majority of the population could also avail of free time. Hence the earnest discussions and angst over the 'problem of leisure' and the sheer novelty of the experience when it was finally granted

To compare this unfavourably to the average peasant producer in medieval times is nonsense. According to Singman's Daily Life in Medieval Europe, serf labourers worked according to daylight - a minimum of seven to eight hours in winter and eleven plus in summer. And this was without factoring in the time needed to cultivate his own plot*. Similarly the notion that there was a sudden jump in hours worked with the dawn of the industrial revolution has come under increasing fire. Witness Lindert (in The Economic History of Britain Since 1700) who notes that:

"Working hours per day did not rise so much as one would infer from classic portrayals of the march from farm life to the sweated textile mills... On the balance there was no trend in daily working hours in the latter half of the 18th C and only a slight hint of a longer average work day in the first half of the 20th"

Where there was an increase in work done it was not usually the product of increased working hours but the curtailment of numerous holy days/festivals. (Voth in The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain)

*Although I tend to regard all data on working hours pre-19th C as suspect and lacking integrity. Not only is the data lacking but there are huge regional and seasonal variations at play

[bcbm]

The working class. How could it be any other way?

perhaps i should have phrased it "who was in charge of industrial development?" in most of the world this was a task undertaken by the bourgeoisie, who had to force workers into the factories and then break them of their "bad habits."


I know, your 'point' was nothing more than bullshit sectarian baiting

the development in industry in almost every part of the globe has been pursued primarily through force and at the cost of many human lives. the ideal industrial subject has always been regarded as secondary to production, heavily controlled and denied most creative expression. what's bullshit about that?


Well, obviously. But then industrialisation is far more than simple machines or their use. It entails an enormous social and economic transformation and the creation of a new class. Machines did not demand shorter working hours - their operators did. And they were able to win this right because advances in technology and mechanisation allowed for vastly increased output. Today European workers enjoy 4-5 weeks off a year and yet the productive forces of their nations have never been higher

the working classes in previous historical periods struggled just as fiercely for very similar goals, with similar results. workers have always fought against the things that oppress them and while the possibilities were expanded during the industrial period, it wasn't the first time workers had fought for shorter hours, higher wages or longer vacations.


No they don't. Which was exactly the significance of the eight hour day - it was the first time in history when the vast majority of the population could also avail of free time.

from here (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html):


According to Oxford Professor James E. Thorold Rogers[1], the medieval workday was not more than eight hours. The worker participating in the eight-hour movements of the late nineteenth century was "simply striving to recover what his ancestor worked by four or five centuries ago."


Knoop and Jones' figures for the fourteenth century work out to a yearly average of 9 hours (exclusive of meals and breaktimes)[3]. Brown, Colwin and Taylor's figures for masons suggest an average workday of 8.6 hours[4].


All told, holiday leisure time in medieval England took up probably about one-third of the year. And the English were apparently working harder than their neighbors. The ancien règime in France is reported to have guaranteed fifty-two Sundays, ninety rest days, and thirty-eight holidays. In Spain, travelers noted that holidays totaled five months per year.[5]

[1] James E. Thorold Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages (London: Allen and Unwin, 1949), 542-43.
[2] H.S. Bennett, Life on the English Manor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 104-6.
[3] Douglas Knoop and G.P. Jones, The Medieval Mason (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967), 105.
[4] R. Allen Brown, H.M. Colvin, and A.J. Taylor, The History of the King's Works, vol. I, the Middle Ages (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1963).
[5] Edith Rodgers, Discussion of Holidays in the Later Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), 10-11. See also C.R. Cheney, "Rules for the observance of feast-days in medieval England", Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 34, 90, 117-29 (1961).



13th century - Adult male peasant, U.K.: 1620 hours Calculated from Gregory Clark's estimate of 150 days per family, assumes 12 hours per day, 135 days per year for adult male ("Impatience, Poverty, and Open Field Agriculture", mimeo, 1986)



14th century - Casual laborer, U.K.: 1440 hours
Calculated from Nora Ritchie's estimate of 120 days per year. Assumes 12-hour day. ("Labour conditions in Essex in the reign of Richard II", in E.M. Carus-Wilson, ed., Essays in Economic History, vol. II, London: Edward Arnold, 1962).

compared to


1987 - Average worker, U.S.: 1949 hours From The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, by Juliet B. Schor, Table 2.4



1988 - Manufacturing workers, U.K.: 1856 hours
Calculated from Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Office of Productivity and Technology

the only estimate that is substantially more...


Middle ages - English worker: 2309 hours Juliet Schor's estime of average medieval laborer working two-thirds of the year at 9.5 hours per day






seems the least researched, is still comparable to the number of hours worked in south korea currently, and is significantly less than what was seen during the early industrial period


1840 - Average worker, U.K.: 3105-3588 hours Based on 69-hour week; hours from W.S. Woytinsky, "Hours of labor," in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. III (New York: Macmillan, 1935). Low estimate assumes 45 week year, high one assumes 52 week year



1850 - Average worker, U.S.: 3150-3650 hours
Based on 70-hour week; hours from Joseph Zeisel, "The workweek in American industry, 1850-1956", Monthly Labor Review 81, 23-29 (1958). Low estimate assumes 45 week year, high one assumes 52 week year




not that it really matters. the point is that we remain overworked and the promises of industrialization as saving labor and freeing up more time have not been met for most people, and won't be so long as capitalism continues to exist. i think we can agree to that?

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm gonna go with Bcbm on this one, the major complaint of capitalists were that workers had too many religious holidays. Even summer vacation is a hold over from when we were a mainly agricultural society.

[el_chavista]

... my teacher said that a Marxist revolution can only really, properly occur in an industrilised nation.
To what extent is this true?This actually is a main concern of the Marxist theory today. The economical base of socialism is a well developed capitalism. But politically, it has been easier to do a Marxist revolution in the backward countries.

[Belisarius]

In my history class earlier today we were discusing the Russian Revolution and my teacher said that a Marxist revolution can only really, properly occur in an industrilised nation.
To what extent is this true?
Please note that I mean a proper revolution, not the natural evolution to communism present in some 'primitive' cultures.
tell your teacher about trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution. he says that a proletarian revolution in a backward country can advance both a bourgeois (industrialization) and a proletarian revolution. this is what actually happenned in many communist countries. the ussr and china started huge industrialization campaigns in the beginnings of their existence.

[ComradeOm]

perhaps i should have phrased it "who was in charge of industrial development?" in most of the world this was a task undertaken by the bourgeoisie, who had to force workers into the factories and then break them of their "bad habits."In the first place people fled to the cities and factories not because they were driven there - although there was certainly some form of coercion involved - but because it provided a better life and higher wages. To give an example that I'm particularly familiar with, there was no such process in Tsarist Russia (where the vast majority of the peasantry existed on their own communes) yet they was a steady flow of migrants towards the cities. Labour shortages are generally something that industrialising economies need not worry about

Urban living in the early 19th C was shit but cannot compare to the abject misery of the fields. Of particular importance was the relative security of food supplies. Famine, that eternal scourge of pre-industrial societies, is not an urban issue. To quote Hobsbawm:

"...the decrease in mortality which is primarily responsible for the sharp rise in population need be due not to an increase in per capita consumption per year but to a greater regularity of supply; that is, the abolition of the periodic shortages and famines which plagued pre-industrial economies and decimated their populations. It is quite possible for the industrial citizen to worse fed in the normal year than his predecessor, so long as he is more regularly fed"

'Hobsbawm, (1957), The British Standard of Living 1790-1850'. Emphasis in original

And I'm certainly not one to write off every accomplishment made by the bourgeoisie. Their reign has often been hard and extremely unpleasant but the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie has truly remade the world. Often, especially in the West and with regards living standards/life expectancy, this has been for the better


the working classes in previous historical periods struggled just as fiercely for very similar goals, with similar results. workers have always fought against the things that oppress them and while the possibilities were expanded during the industrial period, it wasn't the first time workers had fought for shorter hours, higher wages or longer vacationsPeasants fought for their feudal rights and for land. This is fundamentally different from the proletariat's struggle against capitalism. If this were not the case then one would have expected a successful socialist revolution many centuries ago. This is because while every class fights for its interests, it is only in the interest of the proletariat to create a socialist society

And no, medieval 'communalism' is not the same as socialism


from here (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html):I've seen that article before and am far from impressed. The most obvious problem being that there is simply not enough data to make these sort of assertions. Anyone who paints a sort of timeseries or claims to have an accurate picture of the working day is full of bullshit, to put it bluntly. Most glaringly, the author makes no account for the difference in regional/seasonal working habits. He also, rather amusingly, misses out on the English practice of 'St Monday', which does not inspire confidence


not that it really matters. the point is that we remain overworked and the promises of industrialization as saving labor and freeing up more time have not been met for most people, and won't be so long as capitalism continues to exist. i think we can agree to that?I am all for increasing leisure time but I'd note that most Western workers are currently working historically low hours. The productivity increase in a socialist society should allow for a further reduction of these

[Glenn Beck]

Yes, socialist revolution requires industrialization. In pre-industrial societies the necessary social and economic infrastructure that would allow an institutionalized and self-conscious communist system (as opposed to the transient and vulnerable primitive communism that defeated non-communists like bcbm and many other anarchists uphold as being the only possible and desirable communism) does not exist. The Roman Empire had many slave rebellions and pleb riots, medieval Europe had countless peasant rebellions. As our understanding of these periods in history grow they look more and more like periods of social revolution, but none of them even came close to establishing a communist society. The abolition of class, the institution of a communist system of production and distribution; none of these things were even on the agenda, much less actively pursued.

Marx makes a philosophical argument for why this is in the nature of the proletarian role in production. A peasant just wants enough land and to be left alone, a petty-bourgeois wants to be free from big business competition and state regulation. The proletarian can only be liberated by abolishing the current relations of production and taking over the system, transforming it into something fundamentally different. Every class throughout history has fought for its interests, but according to Marx the proletariat is the only class directly interested in communism.

Ofc the major problem is that historically the most advanced capitalist nations have had the tools at their disposal to mitigate class struggle to the point that there has not been a single revolution that came anywhere near the halls of power in an advanced capitalist country. The "world revolution", an ideal type theorized by Marx where the proletariat would come to widespread class consciousness, lose confidence in the system, and engage in a series of uprisings that cascade throughout the entire world hasn't come to pass. Typically revolutions come to pass in "weak links" of the system that do not have the sufficient level of development to combat the predations of the advanced capitalist countries nor advance to a communist system.

Typically communists will take one of two attitudes towards this problem. The first is to keep the faith that eventually the contradictions of the system will reach the level where the idealized "world revolution" takes place (at least, until they eventually lose faith and become primitivists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Camatte) or humanist liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Castoriadis) or whatever). The second is the Leninist stance which is to bite the bullet and institute a hybrid state-capitalist economy under a republican form of government with the goal of carrying on the class struggle. Neither strategy has led to communism yet, obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[bcbm]

In the first place people fled to the cities and factories not because they were driven there - although there was certainly some form of coercion involved - but because it provided a better life and higher wages.

beginning in the 15th and 16th century in europe there were massive campaigns of enclosures, criminalization and murder used to break the spirit of resistance that had previously existed and force people into other forms of activity. during the early industrial period there was another round of enclosures. all of these measures combined forced peasants and other workers to the cities and to the factories. sure, they were seeking a better life, but primarily because the ruling class had been continually making their lives worse.


'Hobsbawm, (1957), The British Standard of Living 1790-1850'

i skimmed this article, and it seems his general argument is that there was no marked increase in living standards during the early industrial period. there were some improvements, but these came with costs.


And I'm certainly not one to write off every accomplishment made by the bourgeoisie. Their reign has often been hard and extremely unpleasant but the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie has truly remade the world. Often, especially in the West and with regards living standards/life expectancy, this has been for the better

certainly things have gotten better for some people in some parts of the world in the long run, but they have come at great pain to many and i don't think this can be overlooked, nor do i think the way industrial development has been previously undertaken is necessarily the only way it can occur.


Peasants fought for their feudal rights and for land. This is fundamentally different from the proletariat's struggle against capitalism. If this were not the case then one would have expected a successful socialist revolution many centuries ago. This is because while every class fights for its interests, it is only in the interest of the proletariat to create a socialist society

And no, medieval 'communalism' is not the same as socialism

there were many struggles in the middle ages that openly attacked class society and sought something resembling communism. capitalism was largely built on the attacks used to break these struggles- primitive accumulation, etc.


I've seen that article before and am far from impressed. The most obvious problem being that there is simply not enough data to make these sort of assertions. Anyone who paints a sort of timeseries or claims to have an accurate picture of the working day is full of bullshit, to put it bluntly. Most glaringly, the author makes no account for the difference in regional/seasonal working habits. He also, rather amusingly, misses out on the English practice of 'St Monday', which does not inspire confidence

the author is a she. on the point of data, the english kept a good number of records, perhaps the best in the medieval period, and they contain a lot of relevant data about hours and days worked. regional/seasonal working habits are important, but i imagine working some ten hour days in one part of the year and then having three months to do almost nothing but drink with my neighbors would be preferable to being crammed into a factory nine hours a day year round. but if there truly isn't enough data, then it isn't really possible for either of us to prove anything, so why keep discussing it?


I am all for increasing leisure time but I'd note that most Western workers are currently working historically low hours. The productivity increase in a socialist society should allow for a further reduction of these

and i would note that this isn't/may not actually be the case, and then we're back where we started. there's also the issue of the millions or more who don't get to enjoy any of the short work days or safety precautions or any other benefits we have in the west, and this is why i am saying that the promise of more leisure has largely not been met and cannot be met under capitalism.