Hard times = more revolution?

[28350]

Is it better for the working class to be more exploited and downtrodden so they will become more class conscious, or live in better conditions in which they're less concerned with revolution?

I ask because some people fight for reforms for working class conditions, but others seem to think that winning reforms will only distract from revolution.

[DenisDenis]

I've been thinking about that exact same thing actually, it's a bit ironic
actually, if the conditions we live in should get worse, the people would rise
up faster. But we kinda have to work to improve the lives of the people not
make them worse...

But eventually capitalism will make life worse again, here in europe social
security is being dismantled, we have to start working longer again, working
weeks that slowly increase,... all this was affordable because of the economic
growth after the war-years, but now that all of that money and the economic
growth of those times is over, we came to the conclusion that all these things
are just not affordable in capitalism.

So either a new war will make everything better again for western capitalists,
or the living conditions will go back to how they were 100 years from now.

[bricolage]

Is it better for the working class to be more exploited and downtrodden so they will become more class conscious

Absolutely not.
For starters you asking for living and working conditions to be attacked and eroded away which will ultimately result in greater pain and suffering, even outside of a class perspective you just need to be a human being to understand the obscene nature of this.
Beyond this there is nothing to say that worse conditions will naturally lead to revolution, in such conditions it is often more that opportunists, including the far right, can swoop in and get support.
In any case I'd say securing gains can be just as, actually more so, conducive to revolution that a weakening of working and living conditions. For example France which is perhaps the most militant country in Western Europe has a long history of hard won battles, as aside from resulting in people just accepting where it has got them it seems to have more resulted in a continued desire to fight for more and more. Organisations, networks and connections are formed through struggle, the dominance of capital weakened and this is not something that is achieved through greater exploitation and oppression.
In any case like I said to actually ask for people lives to be ruined is pretty disgusting in itself, I'd like to think noone actually believes in this.

[ContrarianLemming]

"Empty stomachs don't fight for freedom, they fight for bread." - Emma Goldman

The idea that hard times bring revolution faster (by revealing the state as the bully it is) was the idea behind propaganda by the deed.

[ed miliband]

Though the fight for freedom and the fight for bread are not entirely separable.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Is it better for the working class to be more exploited and downtrodden so they will become more class conscious


If workers become more and more exploited, they will become more and more willing to find scapegoats, more and more willing to buy into propaganda.... The result: attack 'foreigners who steal jobs', favor aggression in the middle east or elsewhere, and so forth.

Bottom line, workers are willing slaves of the bourgeois in that they'd rather turn against one another in times of crisis than counter the real enemy lurking in the corner.

A bitter pill to swallow, I know, but that's the truth.

[ContrarianLemming]

Though the fight for freedom and the fight for bread are not entirely separable.

"Give us bread...and roses.." - Anarcha Feminist slogan

[mikelepore]

I ask because some people fight for reforms for working class conditions, but others seem to think that winning reforms will only distract from revolution.

It's not the winning of reforms that distracts from revolution. It's the suggestion of them.

The aspect of reformism that distracts from revolution is that people who should know better, people who already understand the need for revolutionary change, when they have certain opportunities to get messages to the working class, when they have gotten some number of people ready to listen to a speech or to read a pamphlet, instead of making full use of that opportunity to get the message to the working class that the capitalist system as a whole has to be scrapped, squander the opportunity, and mainly use that opportunity to tell the working class that what we need is a certain list of reforms to fix up capitalism.

This squandering of potential is as though the working class is taking a course in mathematics, the teacher wastes the whole time and never mentions mathematics, and then the course finishes without the essential learning having taken place.

This is what "socialist" reformism has been doing for the past 150 years.

Look at the typical "socialist" platform document or web site. Note that it uses 99 percent of its communication potential to suggest repairing and patching the capitalist system. Then, buried so deeply that a reader will probably miss it, there is the briefest remark about "eventually" establishing a wholly new system to replace the capitalism that we supposedly just finished fixing up with those improvements.

[Sheldon]

Absolutely not.
For starters you asking for living and working conditions to be attacked and eroded away which will ultimately result in greater pain and suffering, even outside of a class perspective you just need to be a human being to understand the obscene nature of this.
Beyond this there is nothing to say that worse conditions will naturally lead to revolution, in such conditions it is often more that opportunists, including the far right, can swoop in and get support.
In any case I'd say securing gains can be just as, actually more so, conducive to revolution that a weakening of working and living conditions. For example France which is perhaps the most militant country in Western Europe has a long history of hard won battles, as aside from resulting in people just accepting where it has got them it seems to have more resulted in a continued desire to fight for more and more. Organisations, networks and connections are formed through struggle, the dominance of capital weakened and this is not something that is achieved through greater exploitation and oppression.
In any case like I said to actually ask for people lives to be ruined is pretty disgusting in itself, I'd like to think noone actually believes in this.

Not to mention the use capital has always had for a large unemployed force to break worker solidarity. The unemployed function as a reserve army of capital, and this is precisely how capitalism functions in dividing the class. Can a revolutionary wave be sustained during a grime period? Certainly. The period around the barbarity of WWI provides an example of this. Does this necessarily mean that a severe decline of living standards necessitate a revolution? No, for the reasons I and others have mentioned.

I think it almost borders on misanthropy to suggest that people need to be subjected to more pain before proper working class militancy can begin.

[¿Que?]

J Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_curve#Political_science_.28Model_of_revolutions. 29)

One take on it is this. Revolutions occur when as things are progressing better, suddenly there is a severe drop off in economic conditions.


Political science (Model of revolutions)

In political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science), the 'J-curve' is part of a model developed by James Chowning Davies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chowning_Davies) to explain political revolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution). Davies asserts that revolutions are a subjective response to a sudden reversal in fortunes after a long period of economic growth, which is known as relative deprivation. Relative deprivation theory claims that frustrated expectations help overcome the collective action problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem), which in this case may breed revolt. Frustrated expectations could result from several factors, including growing levels of inequality within a country, which may mean those who are increasingly poor relative to the rich are getting less than they expected, or a period of sustained economic development, lifting general expectations, followed by a crisis.
This model is often applied to explain social unrest and efforts by governments to contain this unrest. This is referred to as the Davies' J-Curve, because economic development followed by a depression would be modeled as an upside down and slightly skewed J.


Beats me if it's right or not. I've read one of the original article where Davies is developing this theory, and I know he uses the USSR as an example. I forget any details though.

[Tablo]

Times are always hard for the working class so there will always be Revolution. Do even harder times create more Revolutionary fervor? I think so, but we should never desire worse conditions for the working class just to expediate the Revolutionary process. Not even the borugeoisie want more suffering when it doesnt profit them. No matter the situation we should always work to improve workers living conditions and continue organizing.

[Kenco Smooth]

I find it hard to believe stable class conciousnes is readily born from truly awful conditions.

[#FF0000]

The Reagan years were absolutely awful for the working class and nothing really good came of it.

This is a dumb way of thinking.

[Blake's Baby]

Some people will find the contradictions between 'what is' and 'what can be' sharper and more extreme and thus more glaringly obvious. This counts for the economic crisis, wars and environmental distruction. Other people will give up, knuckle under, think 'there's nothing I can do' and either just go along with things or actively seek to blame some group for their plight - and, the control of the media being what it is, that other group is more likely to be Muslims/the unemployed/immigrants/single mothers/Gypsies/Poles/Jews/scroungers/bludgers/traitors/Trotskyists than ruling class. Also, some people will get involved in fighting back against unemployment and layoffs, pay-cuts, and worsening working conditions, while others will accept as innevitable what capitalism offers. And some will become involved in fighting to retain services like schools and healthcare that suffer under governments reducing deficits.

So in short, while the crisis tends to politicise some people, it de-politicises others.

Tricky business consciousness.

[28350]

What about Lenin's works on imperialism, in which he says that revolution is more likely to occur in exploited countries?

[Ocean Seal]

Well when people are screwed they tend to want change, not necessarily the right change (see Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy).

[Die Neue Zeit]

In a word: no. Look at all the increase in support for those parties which combine far-right xenophobia with populist-left economics.

The best-case scenario for us is a sharp but really quick downturn followed by a really, really, really slow recovery that doesn't trickle down to workers, thereby discrediting those elected immediately to restore economic "order."

[proudcomrade]

I believe that, in order for revolutionary conditions to be set, the people have to have been formed ethically, as well as versed in labor & class history. When these conditions are not already present, and things go belly-up for the workers, we see just the opposite- out of the understandable fear and anger, without a solid ethical & educational base, ignorance and fight-or-flight behavior quickly take over. The result is often a sharp & scary veer to the hard right. I believe that this is what is presently happening in the USA.

P.S. The opposite opinion is not "dumb thinking"; that sort of response does not encourage a novice to feel safe learning the basics among comrades.

[Psy]

In a word: no. Look at all the increase in support for those parties which combine far-right xenophobia with populist-left economics.

The best-case scenario for us is a sharp but really quick downturn followed by a really, really, really slow recovery that doesn't trickle down to workers, thereby discrediting those elected immediately to restore economic "order."
In my opinion the spark will be police oppression not economics, for example a lone police officer going too far and sending a strikers to the hospital causing the strikers to retaliate with violence against the police in armed class war.

This because workers mostly just get depressed when they face bourgeoisie oppression yet can easily get radicalized when the state crushed dissent especially when the riot police storms their peaceful picket lines as the state decided to beat the workers till they agree to the bourgeoisie's terms.

[Thirsty Crow]

Is it better for the working class to be more exploited and downtrodden so they will become more class conscious, or live in better conditions in which they're less concerned with revolution?

I ask because some people fight for reforms for working class conditions, but others seem to think that winning reforms will only distract from revolution.
I'd say that it depends on quite specific, local conditions.
For example, one of the biggest problems in the post-socialist countries is that the younger people (on whom, after all, the burden of a revolutions falls most prominently) are somewhere in the middle of three specific discourses - 1) mainstream pro-integration (EU), fairly liberal in social outlook, fairly liberal in economy as well, 2) mildly to blatantly fascist nationalist "programmes" which try to foster some delusional fantasy about a restored "organic", hierarchic community, and 3) nostalgic accounts of the socialist past, which echo with the remark "then, everything was better".
The voice of genuine socialists is seldom heard. There are no parties, no organizations.
NONE of these has the educational power (raising class consciousness, and consciousness in general) or the organizational capacity and drive for a significant transformation of the society. In fact, the first option appeals mostly to younger generations (by younger, I mean younger than necessary in order to acquire the lived experience of an existing socialist regime of affairs), with its reasonable amount of verbal stress on "liberty" and "tolerance", on one hand, and on the other with glimpsed promises of potential wealth and advertised lifestyles.

Now, if we move away from this perspective focusing on age, we find, I believe, the working class in a social environment which is aggressively hostile to socialist ideas (by socialist, I don't mean reformist). The nationalist ideology has taken root within the working class as well; those of the workers who foster class consciousness are not in a position to engage in serious combat with the unions' opportunism, government's corruption and betrayal and real, material processes which obliterate the sphere of their working activities. And economic hardship does not matter much, since the prevailing attitude is, in fact, that the people are left out in the cold, embraced by inhuman, impersonal forces of history. There is not even a spark of seriously organized dissent. Not yet. And I don't really believe in such an economic determinism. If the goal is to raise class consciousness, enable the workers to empower themselves, then it is completely counter-productive to wait until people beg on the streets for a living.

BTW,what I've just said, it strikes me know, is really applicable for the ex-Yugoslavia region. I'm not really sure what are the regional differences between various post-socialist countries. If there are any.

[DenisDenis]

In my opinion the spark will be police oppression not economics, for example a lone police officer going too far and sending a strikers to the hospital causing the strikers to retaliate with violence against the police in armed class war.

This because workers mostly just get depressed when they face bourgeoisie oppression yet can easily get radicalized when the state crushed dissent especially when the riot police storms their peaceful picket lines as the state decided to beat the workers till they agree to the bourgeoisie's terms.

Yes, but the biggest strikes happen because of economic reasons i believe, in
a rescession a whole country undergoes it, not just a region, or 1 company...


But I also believe that people should be educated with concepts like class-war
and class consciousness, but for that to happen, the socialist movements should
grow again! We really need to come out of the shadows and explain to the people
that we do NOT want a dictatorship, but a fair and sustainable society.As a
counterweight to the right-wing media and propaganda, I propose we should
get more media-coverage somehow, but how would that ever be possible in the
current climate...

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that hard times = more revolution necessarily, but I don't think that hard times is counterproductive to the goal of revolution, either. Consider the case of the Depression-era United States during the 30's. In the late 20's/30's there was a volatile situation in the Colorado mining regions, the ferocious 1934 Longshoreman's Strike, widespread revolt throughout the factories of the Midwest and the advent of industrial unionism and the "sit-down" strike, and a general strike in Minneapolis during which all of the police were chased out of the city for a brief period by thousands of striking workers. That combined with social unrest in which mobs of people would gather on eviction days and prevent the cops from throwing people out of their homes.

[Steve_j]

Ok i just got home and am drunk so i wont go into it too much, i didnt read the thread properly (cause im a bit pissed) but I think everyone seems to be missing the point that revolution is not exclusivly a leftist phenomenon, it can happen any time and any where (to an extent) beyond a leftist view of class struggle. So the depth of the opression of the working class is irrelevant, what matters is class consciousness.

[Psy]

Ok i just got home and am drunk so i wont go into it too much, i didnt read the thread properly (cause im a bit pissed) but I think everyone seems to be missing the point that revolution is not exclusivly a leftist phenomenon, it can happen any time and any where (to an extent) beyond a leftist view of class struggle. So the depth of the opression of the working class is irrelevant, what matters is class consciousness.
Class consciousness does not exist outside class conflict if there is no class conflict there can be no class consciousness.

Meaning hard times helps revolutions because the workers chain is shortened and workers exceptions are "corrected" by the police thus experiences first hand how the capitalist arrangement works (and that the police is basically pimp hand of bourgeoisie)

[Glenn Beck]

Check out this section of the book Forces of Labor by Beverly Silver: "Labor as Fictitious Commodity" (http://books.google.com/books?id=la2PBtQ64KIC&lpg=PP24&dq=forces%20of%20labor&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false) for a theoretical argument that different types of adverse conditions will breed different types of labor unrest, with some being more likely to lead to class consciousness and others more likely to lead to national, ethnic, etc. types of solidarity as a vehicle to address grievances. I really like this book in general and I think the dichotomy the author draws here is a useful way of understanding why declining living conditions and economic crises don't always lead to the type of political radicalization we might like to see, or even any politicization at all.

[FreeFocus]

Well, most people don't put their lives or livelihood on the line when they're making decent money and can put food on the table and a roof over their heads. We shouldn't want hard times just for the hell of it, especially when the prerequisite conditions for revolution don't exist. Look at the many decades of work that went into education and organizing prior to the Spanish Civil War - Spanish peasants were well-versed in socialist theory and organization. It didn't just "happen."

So, awareness + organization + hard times = revolution, but hard times only = stupid ass right-wing stuff, or more support for imperialism, xenophobia, racism, etc.

[guybob1000]

In my amateur opinion I believe that when workers of a country achieve gains in purchasing power, are freed from the concerns of filling their stomachs, and other base needs they demand more individual freedom and have less tolerance for governmental abuses of power. U.S embargoes, which strangle countries while making the poor and middle class suffer the most, commonly remain in the grip of the tyrannical government.

I have no proof and am honestly to tired to look it up, but does anyone think that the power of China to control people, have people murdered, and imprison citizens for just cause has increased or decreased over its years of economic growth.

I'm sure China still does some nasty stuff (the U.S, does so China must be up to some forms of vile undertaking) but the point is that prospects increase due to increased prospects

The point is that (at least as I believe) peoples prospects increase due to increased prospects. When people make progress they demand more.

Sort of a conundrum.

[Coggeh]

Well, most people don't put their lives or livelihood on the line when they're making decent money and can put food on the table and a roof over their heads. We shouldn't want hard times just for the hell of it, especially when the prerequisite conditions for revolution don't exist. Look at the many decades of work that went into education and organizing prior to the Spanish Civil War - Spanish peasants were well-versed in socialist theory and organization. It didn't just "happen."

So, awareness + organization + hard times = revolution, but hard times only = stupid ass right-wing stuff, or more support for imperialism, xenophobia, racism, etc.
Would basically agreed with u , hard times mean nothing without an organised left alternative for the working class.

Another point I would make is that it doesn't have to be hard times for revolution look at may 68 in France that was during a boom period for western european capitalism. The key is not the economic times for socialists will always have more ammunition than is needed to convince people of the failures of capitalism its the presence of an alternative which is the key to a genuine workers revolt.

[Lulznet]

I don't understand the view that there have to be hard times in order to be a revolution when it fact the revolution is simply needed to increase the quality of life for the proletariat and simply change the way society functions.

Whether or not there are hard times is not the issue. :cool: Generally Capitalism will create enough hard times at its own which will eventually spark revolution.