Why Systemic Collapse will not lead to Revolution

[Dermezel]

The idea was proposed by an anarcho-socialist. First, bring anarchy, then socialism. This is to be done, he argued, first by promoting the Republicans to the point where they bring about systemic collapse.

This plan however is unlikely to work for one simple reason: misery does not necessarily induce revolution.

Consider the 19th century. Consider the middle ages. Back then life was as miserable as it could be. There was war, disease, child prostitution, rampant crime, occasional rioting mobs, entire cities burning down for lack of fire departments.

This did not lead to Revolution. Anyone who thinks it will has simply idealized the situation out of desperation.

Now some will of course argue that every success case of Revolution has occurred during a crisis of capitalism. The Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Vietnam, and Korean. However, I would counter-point out Cuba, which had a Revolution, and did so without a period of crisis being induced.

Why is this?

I will note the reason why isn't just because of Crisis, but because of War.

War induces technological development, and technological development induces Social Revolution.

Consider the Bourgeoisie Revolutions- which were the product of technological development. The defeat of Roman Imperialism, which was the result of various "barbarians" attaining farming technology- which afforded them specialized black smiths and standing armies.

My argument is thus not that it is Crisis that signifies Revolution, but technological development. I am convinced that the post-hoc relationship appears so strong precisely because Capitalist Crisis is linked to technological developments.

Consider the Bourgeoisie Market is always undergoing technical revolutions. These in turn, will inevitably put some bourgeoisie out of business or threaten to put some bourgeoisie out of business. It will also lead to new market opportunities that the Bourgeoisie will fight over.

Also consider how the average rate of crisis, at the time of Marx was noted to be roughly ten years. This in fact correlates almost perfectly with the rate of technological development at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution: google book link. (http://books.google.com/books?id=AJuowQmtbU4C&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=technology+doubles+every+ten+years+wired+for+wa r&source=bl&ots=ui_dx78G4-&sig=G4c-96IlmQ2iFnKGcQTokPW7Kl4&hl=en&ei=y-r3S_TEGZK4NsDGrIQI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false)

So we must ask ourselves, as serious Marxists and Revolutionaries, why is it some technological advances- such as guns, and the printing press- have lead to Revolution, whereas others have not. My argument is that the effects of technology can go either way: some technologies are pacifying, like the television, whereas others are empowering, like the gun.

Technology, at a certain point becomes geography and geography is essential to any strategic engagement. Consider the differences between Suburbs and cities. Consider how it was the automobile that made suburbs possible.

Consider how in Europe the population is more heavily concentrated in urban centers, whereas the US has experienced "White Flight."

Now consider a Revolutionary Situation like the Greek Riots. In the cities, there are large groups, everything is in walking distance, buildings everywhere, areas to crowd in, easy mobility for the crowd as well as cover.

Now consider a Suburban "riot". It starts in a neighborhood and then goes where? The people will have to walk 10-20-30 miles. They will have to cross freeways and highways. Neigh, that situation is impossible, which is part of why the US government has in the past subsidized suburban over urban development.

The only way to get from place to place in the suburbs is via cars, and good luck driving large numbers of cars on the highways for a "Revolution". 1 Road Block ends that.

This emphasis on technological development, over crisis, as an explanation for crisis and revolution explains more then just basing the idea of Revolution on Crisis and does so more parsimoniously and better accounts for exceptions.

For example, the Bourgeoisie Revolutions- obvious explanation. Cuba- which was not in crisis. The United States during the Progressive Era, which was induced by radio and news paper, and the Reactionary Post-McCarthy era, which may be explained possibly by television.

The Russian Revolution- military expansion, meaning expansion in communications and weapons manufacture.

At the very least one cannot ignore the role of technological development on Revolution. It explains why during times of prosperity Revolutions can become possible, and why during times of the most abject misery and social instability revolutions are still impossible.

Realizing how this works, scientifically, is essential to having a Revolution in the modern era, since Nuclear Weapons make it so another war is out of the question.

[Ele'ill]

Here's why a systemic collapse will help social change (not just automatically induce it)-

Right now in the United States rugged individualism still reigns as the dominant social structure between neighbors. Nobody feels they need each other, nobody knows how to help each other. In a state of crisis it will be highlighted on a large scale how communities DON'T need police, DON'T need the government to rely on transportation, DON'T need to rely on their family alone for help and DON'T need men and women with assault rifles to bring them 'aid'. Even if the collapse isn't a full one and everything is restored in a matter of months or years the people in the community will remember what worked and what didn't.

[Ele'ill]

Now consider a Suburban "riot". It starts in a neighborhood and then goes where? The people will have to walk 10-20-30 miles. They will have to cross freeways and highways. Neigh, that situation is impossible, which is part of why the US government has in the past subsidized suburban over urban development.

The only way to get from place to place in the suburbs is via cars, and good luck driving large numbers of cars on the highways for a "Revolution". 1 Road Block ends that.

Or their cars can become a roadblock. Why do they need to 'riot'? Why can't they organize within their community with roadblocks of their own set up to stop unwanted individuals (police, military, whatever) from entering. The idea that so many of the system's vitals are away from neighborhoods works to people's advantage. If they have to move they need to have their shit together, they need to be organized and this means their actions will be that much more successful.

[Dr Mindbender]

i cant disagree with the OP, if misery bred revolution then Africa would be a communist hotbed which is isnt strangely enough.

[Publius]

Just FYI: That shit about technology "doubling every 10 years" is bullshit.

It's done by Ray Kurzweil who is a loon who thinks he can live forever, that there would be conscious computers by 2010 (still waiting!) and other such ridiculous beliefs.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php

Just to clear that up.

[Dr Mindbender]

technological progress in many ways has hit a glass ceiling under capitalism. Its onus is dictated by profitability, not by effeciency or whatever is generally better for all parties concerned.

This is why large multinational corporations are happy to employ third world human labourers en masse for jobs that could clearly be done more effectively by machines without the associated turmoil and human misery such as precise electronics assembly or the manufacture of clothing.

[Ele'ill]

i cant disagree with the OP, if misery bred revolution then Africa would be a communist hotbed which is isnt strangely enough.

Systemic collapse doesn't imply that it will be replaced with murderous gangs operating under warlords. If there is enough open violence and intimidation there won't be any kind of organizing, period.

If the situation of 'misery' offered a decent time table for organizing then it can be used as a catalyst for change.

This also doesn't include natural disasters such as droughts in various countries or Katrina like events as you can't do much when your living environment is fucked to the point of you not being able to leave your house without choking on dust or off-gassing bodies.

[mikelepore]

I second the motion that Ray Kurzweil is a loon. I know at least one Kurzweil reader who stopped being a socialist because of this pseudo-futurism. He concluded that there is no need to emancipate the working class because very soon nano robots and the Star Trek replicator device will abolish the need for anyone to work.

[Dimentio]

The idea was proposed by an anarcho-socialist. First, bring anarchy, then socialism. This is to be done, he argued, first by promoting the Republicans to the point where they bring about systemic collapse.

This plan however is unlikely to work for one simple reason: misery does not necessarily induce revolution.

Consider the 19th century. Consider the middle ages. Back then life was as miserable as it could be. There was war, disease, child prostitution, rampant crime, occasional rioting mobs, entire cities burning down for lack of fire departments.

This did not lead to Revolution. Anyone who thinks it will has simply idealized the situation out of desperation.

Now some will of course argue that every success case of Revolution has occurred during a crisis of capitalism. The Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Vietnam, and Korean. However, I would counter-point out Cuba, which had a Revolution, and did so without a period of crisis being induced.

Why is this?

I will note the reason why isn't just because of Crisis, but because of War.

War induces technological development, and technological development induces Social Revolution.

Consider the Bourgeoisie Revolutions- which were the product of technological development. The defeat of Roman Imperialism, which was the result of various "barbarians" attaining farming technology- which afforded them specialized black smiths and standing armies.

My argument is thus not that it is Crisis that signifies Revolution, but technological development. I am convinced that the post-hoc relationship appears so strong precisely because Capitalist Crisis is linked to technological developments.

Consider the Bourgeoisie Market is always undergoing technical revolutions. These in turn, will inevitably put some bourgeoisie out of business or threaten to put some bourgeoisie out of business. It will also lead to new market opportunities that the Bourgeoisie will fight over.

Also consider how the average rate of crisis, at the time of Marx was noted to be roughly ten years. This in fact correlates almost perfectly with the rate of technological development at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution: google book link. (http://books.google.com/books?id=AJuowQmtbU4C&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=technology+doubles+every+ten+years+wired+for+wa r&source=bl&ots=ui_dx78G4-&sig=G4c-96IlmQ2iFnKGcQTokPW7Kl4&hl=en&ei=y-r3S_TEGZK4NsDGrIQI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false)

So we must ask ourselves, as serious Marxists and Revolutionaries, why is it some technological advances- such as guns, and the printing press- have lead to Revolution, whereas others have not. My argument is that the effects of technology can go either way: some technologies are pacifying, like the television, whereas others are empowering, like the gun.

Technology, at a certain point becomes geography and geography is essential to any strategic engagement. Consider the differences between Suburbs and cities. Consider how it was the automobile that made suburbs possible.

Consider how in Europe the population is more heavily concentrated in urban centers, whereas the US has experienced "White Flight."

Now consider a Revolutionary Situation like the Greek Riots. In the cities, there are large groups, everything is in walking distance, buildings everywhere, areas to crowd in, easy mobility for the crowd as well as cover.

Now consider a Suburban "riot". It starts in a neighborhood and then goes where? The people will have to walk 10-20-30 miles. They will have to cross freeways and highways. Neigh, that situation is impossible, which is part of why the US government has in the past subsidized suburban over urban development.

The only way to get from place to place in the suburbs is via cars, and good luck driving large numbers of cars on the highways for a "Revolution". 1 Road Block ends that.

This emphasis on technological development, over crisis, as an explanation for crisis and revolution explains more then just basing the idea of Revolution on Crisis and does so more parsimoniously and better accounts for exceptions.

For example, the Bourgeoisie Revolutions- obvious explanation. Cuba- which was not in crisis. The United States during the Progressive Era, which was induced by radio and news paper, and the Reactionary Post-McCarthy era, which may be explained possibly by television.

The Russian Revolution- military expansion, meaning expansion in communications and weapons manufacture.

At the very least one cannot ignore the role of technological development on Revolution. It explains why during times of prosperity Revolutions can become possible, and why during times of the most abject misery and social instability revolutions are still impossible.

Realizing how this works, scientifically, is essential to having a Revolution in the modern era, since Nuclear Weapons make it so another war is out of the question.

I am in agreement there. The fall of the Roman Empire was not caused by a slave revolution but by an economic collapse caused by overexploitment of the natural base. The result was not a more progressive system but a return to substinence in large parts of Europe (though living conditions in some places improved due to the vanishing of Roman tax collectors).

[Dean]

Consider the 19th century. Consider the middle ages. Back then life was as miserable as it could be. There was war, disease, child prostitution, rampant crime, occasional rioting mobs, entire cities burning down for lack of fire departments.

Consider the late 60s and early 70s. The energy / credit crisis created massive uprising across the world - even here in Hawaii, massive protests erupted around the cause of indigenous land dispossession and other related issues.

In addition, the middle ages and the 19th centures were marked by totally different changes that had totally different repercussions - there was no uniform destitution, and working class action and revolutions were actually very widespread as well.

In short, I don't think you know much about what you're talking about.