More questions about the revolutionary process

[Sixiang]

Hello revleft. I've got (yet again) some questions about "the revolution" and some specific aspects of it. Some of them may deal with some Marxist theory at some points.

I'm a little confused about how exactly the revolution should happen. Should it be a slow process of "using" (for a lack of a better word) the current system to change the system? As in, should we have a more peaceful, democratic revolution in which more and more revolutionary ideas should be voted in over time until socialism is achieved? I'm not particularly in favor of this method. It seems too slow to me. Also, it makes me wonder what we'll do in the mean time.

Or should there be a violent uprising of the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie? Is this like what happened in USSR, China, and Cuba? I'm not too well versed on my history of countries, to be honest with you. And if so, how quickly should it happen? Should we really wait until the entire proletariat is ready to take over? Or should a smaller group (maybe a majority, but not all of the proletariat) act as representative of the proletariat to bring it about? My point with that is that I can't imagine that ever single proletarian was on the side of the revolutionaries, nor can I imagine that you would get a complete, 100% support of revolution from all of the proletariat. There are plenty of right-wing proletarians. If I am supposed to wait for all of the proletariat to be on board, what do I do in the mean time? Why should I just sit back and watch workers be exploited when I could try to end it sooner?

Along with this idea is a question about the "modes of production." I am referring to the evolution of Primitive Communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. I'm confused about this process. Is this supposed to be a more "natural" process, or can I try to speed it up? In the current state of the world, there are societies all over the place. Some are in transitional stages between the different phases, and some are in each phase. Am I supposed to bring everyone up to capitalism, and then move on to socialism? Or can socialism exist in one place first and then others as they "catch up"? Am I supposed to wait for "3rd world" countries to catch up to where "1st world" countries are and then go on to socialism? Can a society skip a phase? Can you skip capitalism and go from feudalism to socialism?

Did Marx go into detail about any of these ideas? I have a pretty basic understanding of Marxist theory. I know he said that workers should take over the factories and do that whole list of actions he listed in the Communist Manifesto, but a lot of it seems vague. This sort of dives into different "-isms" of communist thought. Should we wait for an international revolution? Should there be different revolutions at different times depending on the country? Should they be violent? Should they be immediate or slow processes?

I get the basic overall ideas, but the specifics are where it gets hard for me to decide. I don't really adhere to any of the different branches or sections of Marxist thought, but that's mostly because I don't really know much about them or how to pick one, or if I even should pick one.

Any help with answering these questions or providing insight is greatly appreciated by me. I look forward to any knowledge that is shared. Thanks.

[AK]

Hello revleft. I've got (yet again) some questions about "the revolution" and some specific aspects of it. Some of them may deal with some Marxist theory at some points.

I'm a little confused about how exactly the revolution should happen. Should it be a slow process of "using" (for a lack of a better word) the current system to change the system? As in, should we have a more peaceful, democratic revolution in which more and more revolutionary ideas should be voted in over time until socialism is achieved? I'm not particularly in favor of this method. It seems too slow to me. Also, it makes me wonder what we'll do in the mean time.
Basically, change can never come from within the system. Revolution is the overthrow of one class by another - and the capitalist class isn't exactly going to let us use their system against them. Anyway, since pretty much everything is a cause and effect relationship, Marx went along and decided that classes arise from different ways of producing things and that someone's individual class status was determined by their relationship to these modes of production. Long story short; to achieve a classless society, you had to change the economic factors involved in the creation and maintenance of classes. For example, capitalists own and have control of the means of production and capital - giving them immense social power and putting them in the position of ruling class - and workers own no means of production or capital and have no say in how the economy or society runs. The goal of the communists is to make that the means to control the economy and the running of society are placed into the hands of everyone so there aren't just a few thousand individuals with this kind of power. As you may have figured out by now, revolution entails the working class as a whole effectively gaining control of the means of production and becoming the masters of production.


Or should there be a violent uprising of the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie? Is this like what happened in USSR, China, and Cuba? I'm not too well versed on my history of countries, to be honest with you. And if so, how quickly should it happen? Should we really wait until the entire proletariat is ready to take over? Or should a smaller group (maybe a majority, but not all of the proletariat) act as representative of the proletariat to bring it about? My point with that is that I can't imagine that ever single proletarian was on the side of the revolutionaries, nor can I imagine that you would get a complete, 100% support of revolution from all of the proletariat. There are plenty of right-wing proletarians. If I am supposed to wait for all of the proletariat to be on board, what do I do in the mean time? Why should I just sit back and watch workers be exploited when I could try to end it sooner?
Revolution has two options - getting crushed or gaining the support of the working class. Generally, no-one is ever foolish enough to attempt a revolution in periods of low class-consciousness when half the population are fascists. As for your question about violence in a revolution; in a true proletarian revolution, the violence will come from the reaction. Our ideal plan is only to take control of what alters social relationships, not to build big armies to blast the bourgeoisie off the face of the Earth.

[Paulappaul]

Or should there be a violent uprising of the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie? Is this like what happened in USSR, China, and Cuba? I'm not too well versed on my history of countries, to be honest with you. And if so, how quickly should it happen? Should we really wait until the entire proletariat is ready to take over? Or should a smaller group (maybe a majority, but not all of the proletariat) act as representative of the proletariat to bring it about? My point with that is that I can't imagine that ever single proletarian was on the side of the revolutionaries, nor can I imagine that you would get a complete, 100% support of revolution from all of the proletariat. There are plenty of right-wing proletarians. If I am supposed to wait for all of the proletariat to be on board, what do I do in the mean time? Why should I just sit back and watch workers be exploited when I could try to end it sooner?

Your asking us to give you answers when it's something you figure out on your own. Brainwashing only leads to a False enlightenment.

No matter the theory, or the course of action, any Socialist will tell that sitting on your ass isn't a good option. Even if the entire proletariat isn't conciseness we can take immediate steps towards improving the conditions of the proletarit, along with the conditions of the movement as it is. The Black Panthers for one organized free education and food for the working class. This not only improved the life of others, but it also radicalized them towards socialism.

When people saw the IWW fight alongside the Working class towards the securing of higher wages and working conditions it made people think that maybe Socialism isn't bad after all.

The reason the right is making alot of progress right now on the left is because they're organizing in the same fashion with people. By appealing to their interest with pro-capitalism.

The best thing for Socialists right now to do is organizing and showing solidarity with the working class by Unionizing and working in their community.


Is this supposed to be a more "natural" process, or can I try to speed it up?

Economic Determinism purposes that yes it will eventually happen. However the universe isn't set in stone, and therefor you can speed it up.


Did Marx go into detail about any of these ideas? I have a pretty basic understanding of Marxist theory. I know he said that workers should take over the factories and do that whole list of actions he listed in the Communist Manifesto, but a lot of it seems vague.

Yes he did go into detail about the different Modes of Production and how they came about. PM me for some works by name. Marx was vague cause frankly, he didn't know how the revolution was gonna happen. Marx only studied history and economics, he wasn't a fortune teller.

[Sixiang]

Thanks for the responses. I am still curious about the idea of skipping a phase. Can one country go from feudalism to socialism? Or do they have to wait until they make the transition into capitalism before they can go to step 6?

Along with this continues my question about the revolution happening on a national or international scale. If one country is ready to make the transition to socialism, should they wait for all of the others to catch up, or is it possible for them to be socialist on their own until the others do catch up? I think this has to do with that Stalinism vs Trotskyism debate of socialism in one country or socialism internationally. I'm not too knowledgeable on the different sectarian views, so any insight is appreciated.

[ckaihatsu]

---





Thanks for the responses. I am still curious about the idea of skipping a phase. Can one country go from feudalism to socialism? Or do they have to wait until they make the transition into capitalism before they can go to step 6?





The social (productive) conditions to enable socialism could arguably have been around since about 1100 AD in Northern Europe, with the rise of nascent urban areas.




Harman, People's History of the World

Chapter 6 - European feudalism

[...]

Yet this most backward extremity of the great Eurasian continent was eventually to become the birthplace of a new civilisation which would overwhelm all the rest.

[...]

There was a corresponding slow but cumulative change in the social relations of society as a whole, just as there had been in Sung China or the Abbasid caliphate. But this time it happened without the enormous dead weight of an old imperial superstructure to smother continued advance. The very backwardness of Europe allowed it to leapfrog over the great empires.

[...]

There were horrific and pointless wars, barbaric torture and mass enslavement. Yet in the end a new organisation of production and society emerged very different to anything before in history.

[...]

On occasions the literacy of monks was used to gain access to writings on technology from Greece and Rome and from the Byzantine and Arabic empires: ‘If one is looking for the earliest mills, water mills or windmills, or for progress in farming techniques, one often sees the religious orders in the vanguard’.99

The full adoption of new techniques involved a change in relations between lords (whether warrior or religious) and cultivators. The great landholders finally had to abandon the wasteful Roman practice of slave labour—a practice that lingered on as late as the 10th century. Then they began to discover advantages in ‘serfdom’, in parcelling out land to peasant households in return for a share of the produce. The serfs had an incentive for working as hard as they could and employing new techniques on their holdings. As total output rose, the lords’ incomes also rose, especially as they used their military might to force previously free peasants into serfdom. What Bois calls ‘the transformation of the year 1000’ spelt the final end of agricultural slavery—and the final establishment of feudal serfdom as a more dynamic mode of production than the old Roman system.100

The importance of what happened in the countryside between about 1000 and 1300 is all too easily underrated by those of us for whom food is something we buy from supermarkets. A doubling of the amount of food produced by each peasant household transformed the possibilities for human life across Europe. Whoever controlled the extra food could exchange it for the goods carried by the travelling traders or produced by the artisans.

Crudely, grain could be changed into silk for the lord’s family, iron for his weapons, furnishing for his castle, wine and spices to complement his meal. It could also be turned into means that would further increase the productivity of the peasant cultivators—wooden ploughs with iron tips, knives, sickles, and, in some cases, horses with bridles, bits and iron shoes.

By supplying such things at regular markets the humble bagman could transform himself into a respectable trader, and the respectable trader into a wealthy merchant. Towns began to revive as craftsmen and traders settled in them, erecting shops and workshops around the castles and churches. Trading networks grew up which tied formerly isolated villages together around expanding towns and influenced the way of life in a wide area.101 To obtain money to buy luxuries and arms, lords would encourage serfs to produce cash crops and substitute money rents for labour services or goods in kind. Some found an extra source of income from the dues they could charge traders for allowing markets on their land.

Life in the towns was very different from life in the countryside. The traders and artisans were free individuals not directly under the power of any lord. There was a German saying, ‘Town air makes you free.’ The urban classes were increasingly loath to accept the prerogatives of the lordly class. Traders and artisans who needed extra labour would welcome serfs who had fled bondage on nearby estates. And as the towns grew in size and wealth they acquired the means to defend their independence and freedom, building walls and arming urban militias.

[...]





Along with this continues my question about the revolution happening on a national or international scale. If one country is ready to make the transition to socialism, should they wait for all of the others to catch up, or is it possible for them to be socialist on their own until the others do catch up? I think this has to do with that Stalinism vs Trotskyism debate of socialism in one country or socialism internationally. I'm not too knowledgeable on the different sectarian views, so any insight is appreciated.





I'll note here that I, myself, do *not* advocate any kind of *de*-centralized society. I've recently written here at RevLeft that the very *notion* of 'revolution' is a necessarily *centralized* political event, since, by definition, it takes place everywhere at more or less the same time. (Meaning that the forces of the bourgeoisie could fairly easily "sneak past" the revolution and defeat it if revolutionary forces weren't *coordinated* on a large-scale basis -- centralized.)

[Sixiang]

ckaihatsu: That's some interesting stuff. I was especially interested in your idea about centralization. So does that mean that 3rd world countries could go into socialism at the same time as 1st world countries? Do you mean to support or disagree with the idea of some countries being ready for socialism before others? If one people is ready for socialism, should they wait for the others to follow suit, or can they remain relatively autonomous for a while? Is this sort of like what's going on or was going on in Cuba, China, North Korea, USSR?

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu: That's some interesting stuff. I was especially interested in your idea about centralization. So does that mean that 3rd world countries could go into socialism at the same time as 1st world countries? Do you mean to support or disagree with the idea of some countries being ready for socialism before others? If one people is ready for socialism, should they wait for the others to follow suit, or can they remain relatively autonomous for a while? Is this sort of like what's going on or was going on in Cuba, China, North Korea, USSR?


These are good questions, and while I am not usually hesitant to respond, these issues *are* a bit beyond me. I'll defer here to someone else who may be better-read on these matters.

I will say, though, that getting out of capitalism's exploitation *should* be a priority, no matter the country or individual, and that a more-decisive coordination of workers' power all over the world will be more demonstrative and convincing to our class foe.

[Sixiang]

These are good questions, and while I am not usually hesitant to respond, these issues *are* a bit beyond me. I'll defer here to someone else who may be better-read on these matters.

I will say, though, that getting out of capitalism's exploitation *should* be a priority, no matter the country or individual, and that a more-decisive coordination of workers' power all over the world will be more demonstrative and convincing to our class foe.

Good point and thanks for the response.

I was first presented with this question about waiting for others from something I heard Noam Chomsky say about the Soviet Union going into this waiting period because they couldn't do it strictly on a national level. That inspired some of these questions.

[ckaihatsu]

Good point and thanks for the response.

I was first presented with this question about waiting for others from something I heard Noam Chomsky say about the Soviet Union going into this waiting period because they couldn't do it strictly on a national level. That inspired some of these questions.


Yeah, no prob.

I would strenuously disagree with the notion that the Soviet Union had any forward-looking intentions of promoting international working class empowerment and revolution. The "waiting" period you refer to was in reality a consolidation of its superpower status in the Cold War, as against, or parallel to, the same thing being done by the U.S. in the same period.