Cause and effect of revolution

[Lobotomy]

Often in discussions on revleft, I've seen a certain thing happen more than once: someone will express a desire for something harmful to happen to the working class (eg unemployment rises, ron paul gets elected, etc) in hopes that this kind of event would cause more dissatisfaction among the working class, and thus would bring us closer to revolution. Whenever someone suggests this, they are usually shot down, but I can't say that I fully understand why. surely there has to be some historical precedent of an oppressed class rebelling soon after suffering a significant loss of some kind?

I guess I just don't understand what else brings about revolution.

if I were a member of the bourgeoisie and I wanted to maintain the status quo, I would feel it is important to give the working class just enough scraps from my plate to make them dispassionate about instigating change.

[Robespierre Richard]

Often in discussions on revleft, I've seen a certain thing happen more than once: someone will express a desire for something harmful to happen to the working class (eg unemployment rises, ron paul gets elected, etc) in hopes that this kind of event would cause more dissatisfaction among the working class, and thus would bring us closer to revolution. Whenever someone suggests this, they are usually shot down, but I can't say that I fully understand why. surely there has to be some historical precedent of an oppressed class rebelling soon after suffering a significant loss of some kind?

I guess I just don't understand what else brings about revolution.

if I were a member of the bourgeoisie and I wanted to maintain the status quo, I would feel it is important to give the working class just enough scraps from my plate to make them dispassionate about instigating change.

Well, ultimately people do choose what kind of state they deserve. If everyone supports Ron Paul tomorrow, then there is really nothing we can do except talk about the consequences of this decision. If several years later people change their mind and start agreeing with the idea of communism, we should be accommodating for that. Unfortunately, today there is little or no infrastructure and resources for us to make that possible, making any event like that dangerous and unpredictable.

[Blake's Baby]

Thing is, VK, it's just not true. Revolutions don't automatically come out of disasters. There were no revolutions after WWII and that was one of the most disastrous periods in history.

Sure there are some disasters that provoke revolutions - the Franco-Prussian War/Paris Commune and WWI/Russian Revolution are the obvious examples but there was no revolution after the 1929 crash, America didn't revolt in 1974 at the end of the Vietnam War, there was no revolution in Iran in 1988 or in Iraq in 1991 despite them both having just lost wars, there was no revolution in Germany in 1933 when Hitler was given power, there were no revolutions around the Indian Ocean after the tsunami five years ago or in Japan last year...

Disasters, military, political, economic, environmental, are bad times for revolution I'd argue. They leave the international working class fractured and at the mercy of the local bourgeoisie - because of the wartime control of movement and information that makes contact between workers on opposite sides of the conflict difficult (eg the socialist delegations from Britain to the Zimmerwald conference not being allowed to travel), because oppressive regimes taking power tend to quickly shoot revolutionaries or throw them into volcanoes or whatever (every oppressive regime since 1848); because economic disasters like the 1929 Crash leave people living hand-to-mouth and too busy organising staying alive to organise revolution; because inthe case of tsunami, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions and extreme weather events - storms, flooding, droughts - infrastructure is ruined and again people are too busy trying to survive.

It's sometimes said 'the crisis is the ally of the working class' and in a way it is true because it's when people think about the causes of these events that they see that capitalism and the state are not their allies (even in 'natural' disasters there are always aspects that capitalism has made worse eg cheaply-built structures that fall in earthquakes, mangrove swamps that would protect coastal areas cleared for tourist development, global warming increasing extreme weather events etc); so these crises do help in the process of the working class coming to consciousness of the detrimental roles of capitalism and the state; but the actual messy business of the crisis themselves doesn't provide that opportunity.

That's how I see it anyway.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Thing is, VK, it's just not true. Revolutions don't automatically come out of disasters. There were no revolutions after WWII and that was one of the most disastrous periods in history.I think there was a wave of rebellions in Europe and then a wave of national liberation movements in the pre-war colonies, but totally I agree with your point.

Those rebellions didn't happen just because things were terrible, they happened in part because of movements before the war, fights from below against military occupations during the war, as well as colonial revolutionaries taking initiative when the imperialist powers were being reshuffled and in disarray.

Hard times alone don't automatically mean that people will fight back at all let alone successfully. If that were the case then we could probably rank countries by inequality or poverty or repression and estimate the order in which revolutions happen. Instead we get uprisings in surprising places like Tunisia and Egypt before more impoverished neighboring countries (let alone before Haiti).

So on the one hand, economic crisis or imperialist war kind of throw some of the illusions about the system into the air and make things politically unstable. If you think capitalism is working and may be shitty but won't be gotten rid of, then most likely most people are going to try and go along to get along. War and economic crisis change that math and now people start to think, well this is just an unworkable situation, we can't go on like this.

These crisis situations plow the field but don't plant the seeds. In fact often they can make workers feel more timid and less willing to fight because they just want to keep holding onto what they still have. In Greece, people voted for the referendum on that basis, in the US many large unions were able to sell concessions to workers for the same reasons. It's better to take a cut in holidays or take on more work without pay, than to be unemployed if that the only other option.

So I think what's more important is the level of confidence and commutativity among workers. Having good strong independent organization can do that very well or a series of more or less spontanious events can potentially build to create a larger sense of militancy among people.

[Blake's Baby]

I think there was a wave of rebellions in Europe and then a wave of national liberation movements in the pre-war colonies, but totally I agree with your point...

Not exactly a wave of rebellions in Europe. There was a big strike wave in Northern Italy around 1944, at the end of the Mussolini regime, but I'm not really aware of anything else much going on. 'Liberation' by the Red Army and/or the Partisans and/or the American Army doesn't count as 'revolution' or even rebellion.

The anti-colonial struggles weren't based on disasters for the indigenous working class but disasters for the colonial bourgeoisies, and therefore really aren't relevant to the question I think.

[Ocean Seal]

Often in discussions on revleft, I've seen a certain thing happen more than once: someone will express a desire for something harmful to happen to the working class (eg unemployment rises, ron paul gets elected, etc) in hopes that this kind of event would cause more dissatisfaction among the working class, and thus would bring us closer to revolution. Whenever someone suggests this, they are usually shot down, but I can't say that I fully understand why. surely there has to be some historical precedent of an oppressed class rebelling soon after suffering a significant loss of some kind?

I guess I just don't understand what else brings about revolution.

if I were a member of the bourgeoisie and I wanted to maintain the status quo, I would feel it is important to give the working class just enough scraps from my plate to make them dispassionate about instigating change.

The left typically doesn't do well in situations of immediate crises and this often creates the proper conditions for fascism. Also keep in mind that many of us on this forum are working class, and most people here don't want shit to get worse, as this doesn't necessarily mean that there is going to be a revolution. I think if you ask most people the question: if you were fired... there would be a revolution, or you would be on an unemployment line, most people would respond with the latter. One last thing capitalism fails naturally, it doesn't need the left to be cheering it on.

[Blake's Baby]

... One last thing capitalism fails naturally, it doesn't need the left to be cheering it on.

I don't think this is true. Crisis doesn't mean collapse. We, the working class, still need to destroy capitalism. Otherwise, we would be living in communism now, surely?

[CommieTroll]

I don't think this is true. Crisis doesn't mean collapse. We, the working class, still need to destroy capitalism. Otherwise, we would be living in communism now, surely?

That's the thing, Marx held the view that the Capitalist mode of production will collapse and from it's ruins the proletariat will build towards Communism but he was very vague when describing how we would achieve the leap towards a Communist society

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's the thing, Marx held the view that the Capitalist mode of production will collapse and from it's ruins the proletariat will build towards Communism but he was very vague when describing how we would achieve the leap towards a Communist societyI think he described revolutionary change coming out of class struggle, not that capitalism will just collapse.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that yes, "hard times" can potentially open up a pathway for a revolutionary movement.

for a contemporary example: http://current.com/groups/news-blog/93595212_food-prices-trigger-revolution.htm

That's not to say that all it takes for revolt to develop is "hard times", but it is a significant factor. The Russian Revolution and the aborted German Revolution (and situations elsewhere internationally, esp. in Italy) both came on the heels of WW1. The upsurge of activity in the USA during the 30's happened during the Depression (and yeah, during a temporary upsurge, but still, the economy was far from "good"). The panic of 1893 spawned real concerns about growing radicalism in the USA.

It's not a universal rule...as far as I know the French economy was OK during Mai '68. But neither should it be simply disregarded as having no influence.

[CommieTroll]

I think he described revolutionary change coming out of class struggle, not that capitalism will just collapse.

I'm aware of that

[Triple A]

Often in discussions on revleft, I've seen a certain thing happen more than once: someone will express a desire for something harmful to happen to the working class (eg unemployment rises, ron paul gets elected, etc) in hopes that this kind of event would cause more dissatisfaction among the working class, and thus would bring us closer to revolution. Whenever someone suggests this, they are usually shot down, but I can't say that I fully understand why. surely there has to be some historical precedent of an oppressed class rebelling soon after suffering a significant loss of some kind?

I guess I just don't understand what else brings about revolution.

if I were a member of the bourgeoisie and I wanted to maintain the status quo, I would feel it is important to give the working class just enough scraps from my plate to make them dispassionate about instigating change.

:hammersickle::star2:

[Lobotomy]

I think I see now. While things like recessions, wars etc can sometimes trigger rebellion and revolution, the left should not rely on them, let alone encourage them. thanks for your replies.