Generations of revolutionaries

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I've been thinking about the subject of the 'next generation' of revolutionaries, beyond the original generation.

I'm flirting with the idea that there could be a fatal flaw in all revolutions hitherto - that they failed when the generation after the original revolutionary generation took over. Or rather, that the revolution experienced a move away from its original ideals after the second generation took over. This appears to have been particularly true of the USSR and PRC.

Is it possible that those who originally participate in the struggle and revolution (i'm thinking of Lenin et al in Russia, Mao and his followers in China) have a unique perspective and understanding of the particular struggle they are involved in, and that only they can implement Socialism and lead the move to a classless society?

My idea is that they are revolutionaries, as they ferment the original change - from Capitalism to Socialism. However, those who come 'through the ranks', so to speak, after the onset of revolution, are not at the forefront of fermenting the move from Capitalism to Socialism. It is widely critiqued that, at some point in the history of the USSR, the CPSU ranks were loaded with 'conservatives', those who wanted to keep things the same.

So, is the problem of post-revolutionary societies (sorry for the awkward phrase, I realise it's not entirely accurate) not simply 'mindless bureaucracy', but actually that the radicals become the conservatives?

This is just a very early idea that i've not really analysed yet from a DM point of view. If people could offer their opinions and perhaps start a discussion, that'd be great.

[cenv]

I think the fact that the fate of socialism depended on who rose "through the ranks" is an indication that it had already deteriorated. Also, how would this theory explain the fact that Stalin and Deng were involved in the Russian and Chinese revolutions respectively?

However, you raise some interesting points about how generational differences would fit into a proletarian revolution. Your post reminded me a little of something I just read by Wilhelm Reich: he argues that growing up under capitalism society creates a certain "character structure" in the individual -- that the influences of economic competition, the centrality of the nuclear family in social life, etc. shape the individual under capitalism in a certain way. Moreover, he argues that the psychological influences of capitalism can't be done away with instantaneously through revolution, that from a psychological perspective, the revolution won't be complete until the first generation has been raised under socialism with the character structure that socialism creates.

This poses an interesting problem for the transitional period. We often say that greed, corruption, etc. are a result of bourgeois social relations, which is true, but we have to consider the extend to which the psychological effects of these relations have been internalized and become a part of how we think on a fundamental level. When Reich talks about this problem, he's interested mainly in bourgeois sexuality vs. sexuality in socialism, and he discusses the need for a transitional sexual morality before humanity can abolish morality altogether. But I think his critique is applicable more generally, in all spheres of life.

Of course, in some ways, this is the opposite of what you're saying. However, I think the problem may not be the disintegration of socialism after the first generation, but rather preserving socialism until the first generation born under socialism can take over. Of course, I think the 20th century's revolutions failed for deeper material reasons, but this is still an important issue.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I was thinking about this some more. Your viewpoint is obviously going to be skewed by your revolutionary outlook. I imagine most left-communists would dismiss any transitional period and so would quite easily draw the conclusion that it is not generational differences that cause degeneration, but the actual existence of 'transitional' period.

I'm not that way inclined, yet to me, the blaming of bureaucracy and flawed nomenklatura for the degeneration of the revolution does not get to the root of the problem. It is obvious that, in the USSR for example, the Brezhnev years (perfect example) were ones of utter stagnation, economically and in revolutionary terms. Yet this is not a cause. It is a symptom. It became more bureaucratically driven, but that's not the root of the problem. Why did it become so?

I'm not satisfied with the answer of 'incorrect theory' or 'the presence of counter-revolutionary elements'.

Of course, I do agree that there were underlying material reasons for the failure of Socialism in the previous century. However, i'm not sure that 'bureaucracy', as pertains to this question, is one of them. Rather, I believe there's something else - a loss of something, which I can't quite pinpoint, between first and second generation revolutionaries. I'd welcome some help in elaborating this theory.

[cenv]

I'm not that way inclined, yet to me, the blaming of bureaucracy and flawed nomenklatura for the degeneration of the revolution does not get to the root of the problem. It is obvious that, in the USSR for example, the Brezhnev years (perfect example) were ones of utter stagnation, economically and in revolutionary terms. Yet this is not a cause. It is a symptom. It became more bureaucratically driven, but that's not the root of the problem. Why did it become so?

I'm not satisfied with the answer of 'incorrect theory' or 'the presence of counter-revolutionary elements'.
Actually, I couldn't agree more. I think bureaucracy developed as a result of material circumstances and productive technology that wasn't yet developed enough to sustain a fluid, worker-oriented socialism. Blaming the failure of these revolutions on the "vanguard" is just as silly as blaming them on "revisionism" because both of these "explanations" reduce actual revolutions to abstractions without historical content and ignore one of the most important aspects of Marx's theory of history: that socialism becomes both possible and necessary only when productive technology outgrows existing social relations, which clearly hadn't happened in either Russia or China.

As far as your original point goes though, I'd argue that the loss of revolutionary fervor has less to do with generations per se -- after all, you could make a case that the dismantling of socialism (if you accept these societies as socialist, but that's another debate) in the USSR and China began under the same generation as the revolution -- and more to do with the fact that in the initial stages of revolution, anything seems possible. But as these revolutions started to run up against material conditions that were stacked against them, it's not hard to see why people would become cynical about socialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That is a fair enough point in your second paragraph. Perhaps there is a problem in that there is a solid first generation and then a solidly entrenched second generation. You had a combination of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Kamenev, Zinoviev etc. 'in power', as it were, for the best part of half a century, and then the two leaders following - Kruschev and Brezhnev - both had long spells in power. You also had the Premiers and other members of the party/government in power for a long time. This is the bureaucracy we talk about. Would it not be reduced by mechanisms which encourage, at certain levels, a higher turnover of positions? Whilst on the one hand it makes sense to have the most able revolutionaries in the positions where they can effect good policy, is there not also a point - with great relevance to Socialism and revolutionary theory - where they stop becoming the radicals and become the conservatives? I mean, can anybody really defend the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact as an act of revolution and not conservatism? (Well, I suppose some will)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The scum floats to the top.

[Zanthorus]

I imagine most left-communists would dismiss any transitional period and so would quite easily draw the conclusion that it is not generational differences that cause degeneration, but the actual existence of 'transitional' period.

:rolleyes:

For once, it would be nice if people actually learned a little about what they were talking about before discussing Left-Communism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I imagine most left-communists would dismiss any transitional period and so would quite easily draw the conclusion that it is not generational differences that cause degeneration, but the actual existence of 'transitional' period.

Confusing Left Communism with Impossibilism, are we?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Does left-communism not advocate an instant transition from Capitalism to a classless society? I.e. does it not abhor the period of transition called 'Socialism' by some that occurred, for example, under Stalin 1929-53?

Sorry if i've really buggered that one up. My mistake if I have.

[Zanthorus]

Does left-communism not advocate an instant transition from Capitalism to a classless society?

No, there is a whole pamphlet on the International Communist Current website discussing what should happen during the transitional period.


I.e. does it not abhor the period of transition called 'Socialism' by some that occurred, for example, under Stalin 1929-53?

Yes, but we don't think these 'socialist' states were in transition to anything, apart from maybe private capitalism.

[AvantGarde1300]

Perhaps the new generation is no longer ingrained with the revolutionary fervor that the older generation had... or they begin to accept things. Maybe the experience of living in a capitalist society is needed to create a true revolutionary, not just horror stories told word of mouth... Almost like someone finds it difficult to truly reject war until they've been in the midst of it.

Just some ideas.

[WeAreReborn]

Perhaps the new generation is no longer ingrained with the revolutionary fervor that the older generation had... or they begin to accept things. Maybe the experience of living in a capitalist society is needed to create a true revolutionary, not just horror stories told word of mouth... Almost like someone finds it difficult to truly reject war until they've been in the midst of it.

Just some ideas.
I also think a large part of it is television. It truly prevents thought from growing in almost every case. During the industrial revolution, they didn't have such a tool of propaganda and such a large amount of escapes ranging anywhere from video games to occasionally music, obviously non political. Luckily, thanks to the internet it seems people are feed up with the way things are going but they don't know where to turn to. Let's just hope the majority don't become cemented in the right like so many currently are doing.