What Are the Means to an End?

[PoliticalNightmare]

In order to implement socialism, it is my understanding that most socialists desire a revolution. Forgive me for any misunderstanding but this would mean a huge change in the organisational structure of politics in a relatively short period of time and would be based in one country such as the UK rather than on a global basis.

However if this country were to suddenly become socialist would its economy not then face difficulty from the rest of the capitalist market. Would this not mean then that evolution was necessary rather than revolution? Because with evolution, assuming that there was a socialist government and socialist media, a country could convey its ideas to the rest of the world meaning that the entire (or majority of the) world gradually turn socialist.

[Blake's Baby]

I can't any country 'becoming socialist' in isolation. Firstly, socialism will be implemented world-wide, or not all; there is no 'socialism in one country', we know where that leads already. So the most we are talking about I think is one country where the working class seize power first, as they did in Russia in 1917.

If the revolution didn't spread immediately, then things would start going wrong immediately. But in a way that doesn't matter, because I can't see one country reaching a revolutionary situation if there's not already a large degree of world-wide class struggle. At a time like the present, where many countries are facing austerity measures and there is a great deal of workers' anger, there have been strikes recently in Britain, Spain, India, Russia, China, Greece and many other countries. Probably just about everywhere there are strikes happening.

When the strikes get bigger and more prolonged and large numbers of workers are directly challenging the state and capitalism (so, a 'pre-revolutionary situation') it's very likely that this will occur in several countries simultaneously. This is lucky for us, as if there was just one country that 'became socialist' I have little doubt that the capitalist nations would attempt to wipe it out very quickly (again, as per Russia in 1918).

[Broletariat]

Revolution has to be a global affair, it might start in one country sure, but if it doesn't spread then it's doomed.

Well someone is faster on the keyboard than myself it appears

[Blake's Baby]

... and it still took me three paragraphs to say what you said in one sentence. :thumbup1:

[Boboulas]

What if one country isnt strong enough against the entire capitalist world? It sounds pretty cynical to say its "doomed" if it fails to spread.

[Blake's Baby]

Because the alternative is...?

Any isolated revolution will degenerate. How could it not? Socialism cannot be established until capitalism has been defeated, so any revolutionary territory will be on a permanent war footing until the revolution spreads. That means as far as I can see a state-capitalist dictatorship to 'hold the line' until other countries spread the revolution; as Lenin thought in Russia, this could take some time, but as a permanent feature? Then, you just doom the revolutionary territory to a permanent counter-Revolutionary state capitalist dictatorship.

I can't see any other choices. Why do you think this is 'cynical'?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Unfortunately I am not skilled (or concise) enough to put my response in a sentence or two.:blushing:


In order to implement socialism, it is my understanding that most socialists desire a revolution.I don't think "desire" is quite right. I desire the working class to run society together - revolution is process. This revolution could be more or less peaceful, but it is still a revolution since one system is replaced by another.


Would this not mean then that evolution was necessary rather than revolution? Because with evolution, assuming that there was a socialist government and socialist media, a country could convey its ideas to the rest of the world meaning that the entire (or majority of the) world gradually turn socialist.In evolution, the forces at work are selection - they are not conscious (except for man-made selection like breeding plants and animals) and have no interests. Even then eveolution, according to many scientists who know this better than I do, often comes in fits and starts. A sudden change in the environment causes a mass die-off and the survivors reproduce and change the dynamics of the local gene pool. Or, if one creature comes up with an effective new adaptation, such as the first animal with the ability to detect changes in light, then it has a great advantage and increases its population while also causing quick evolution in other animals as the only ones who now get to reproduce are the ones who can come up with coping adaptions such as developing sight themselves or developing camouflage or quick get-aways.

In modern society, however, the forces at play in social change are conscious and have various sets of class interests. Because of that, power in society rarely changes hands without a series of quick and sudden changes. The (minority) class in power - the aristocracy, the state-capitalists, the capitalists, have a group interest in maintaining their position and hold over the majority of society and so historically they have always resisted any attempts to promote the interests of other classes in society. So in the French Revolution, you have business people starting to make money, but there are laws which limit their power in society in order to preserve the power of the nobility. If society, is organized along capitalist lines with a rule of law and relative equal treatment under the law, then the nobility (born into power) become meaningless and a low-born rich merchant can then become more powerful. So both groups in society could not advance if the other also advanced and this was ultimately the source of class conflict. The French didn't want to get rid of the king and tried to keep a constitutional monarchy, but as the nobility and king began conspiring with Prussia and other European monarchies to destroy the French revolution, it became clear to the French revolutionaries that they had to totally replace the old regime with one organized to meet the needs of the emerging bourgeois (as well as reforms for other classes below the nobility).

In capitalist society, the irreconcilable class conflicts are also in play. Most workers want a fair wage, some job security, a decent place to live, and free-time from modern society. If they win some reforms to guarantee these things, then the national capitalists of X country now have one hand tied behind their back when they compete with other countries where these reforms are not in play. The other countries can then produce the same things, but pay their workers less - this means they have more profits and more money to invest in a greater share of the international market, or in more labor to be able to produce more, or they can lower the selling price to undercut the capitalists in country X with the worker reforms.

This is why reforms won by workers under capitalism are never static - if they are not defended, they are eroded as has happened to many of the post WWII reforms in the US and Europe.

Another concrete example of why "evolution" will not bring about a transformation of society is when socialists have been elected by the population such as Allende in Chile. After his election, the workers who voted for him took initiative and there were strike waves and so on. Allende claimed to be on the side of workers, but wanted to change slowly - instead the capitalists of that country along with the US government and the military conspired to replace Allende. Pinochet was their alternative, but since Allende was just the electoral expression of all the radicalization going on throughout the country, Pinochet used heavy repression to destroy trade-unions, socialist groups, and torture and kill many militant workers.

Another example is Weimar Germany. There were mass strikes and widespread militancy and even attempts at revolutions that failed, but the Social Democrats argued for a "evolution approach". They had many publications, social clubs for workers, sports leagues, and were the biggest socialist group in Europe in the early 20th century. Well we all know that Germany did not evolve socialism from this point, instead, workers were de-mobilized and a space opened up for the radical right to argue for ending the economic crisis and ending social unrest and eventually the NAZIs came to power.

Years or even months before the French, American, or Russian Revolution, no one predicted the vast social changes about to happen. These things happen quickly because generally people don't think that society can change so they try and make the best out of their lives as workers in the US, Haiti, China, or in the old USSR. But when things break open and it's apparent that the old order is not the only option, change happens quickly and suddenly many people are involved in transforming society and their own lives.