runequester
9th February 2012, 05:25
The improbability of world revolution and the relevance of intermediate action
Traditional thought holds that for socialism to succeed and develop into full communism, revolution must occur broadly, amongst at least several major, industrialised and advanced nations. The failure of world revolution is often held to be the cause for the failure of the soviet bloc.
I would like to make several observations on this topic.
As a point of clarification, throughout this, I will generally use “socialism” in a broader sense than is sometimes used, to describe the series of progressive steps from the overthrow of liberal capitalism and towards state-less communism. This has often been referred to as “state capitalism” or similar terms historically.
It encompasses the full range of “imperfect workers states”.
Observation number 1:
Third world countries are generally held to be have a higher potential for revolution due to more repressive states, lower living conditions, concrete threat of starvation and significantly higher exploitation of it's labour force.
In many regions of the exploited nations, outright slave labour exists, starvation and civil war are often frequent, and dictatorial governments are frequently the norm. Even in nominally democratic states, corruption is often prevalent.
This gives the working class a very strong basis for revolutionary action, however these nations are hampered by their disadvantaged position: They often lack sufficient industry, resource development and administrative networks to adequately function as an isolated state, they are subject to constant foreign manipulation and they can draw on very few allies.
While civil unrest and outright rebellion is likely in such a nation, it will also be isolated almost immediately and subject to foreign intervention and outright suppression.
Additionally, even in the event of successful revolutionary conditions, as there are no strong source of socialist/communist support today, the only foreign that could be secured would be from dictatorial states or liberal democracies, which will guide the direction towards western liberalism.
In conclusion, while many third world countries have conditions that make them likely to revolt, they are unlikely to achieve success.
Observation number 2:
Highly developed, industrialised nations such as the nations of Europe, the US and Japan have the development, administrative and infrastructure networks and productive forces to ensure a functioning socialist state for their citizens, however these countries are highly unlikely to achieve serious revolutionary conditions.
This is due to a number of factors, including the existence of social welfare systems, political pluralism which absorbs dissent directed at the government into the system and freedom of speech which, while often ineffective due to media control by corporations serves as a valve of release for frustration and revolutionary sentiment.
Due to easier access into the political system, dissident groups are encouraged to operate within the system, thus removing their revolutionary potential.
In conclusion, this means that while a highly developed nation has a superior ability to administer a socialist state, and consequently also a superior ability to resist reaction and foreign pressure, it is also less likely to achieve revolutionary sentiments.
Observation number 3:
In any nation, whether revolutionary or not, large segments of the population will be non-political or distantly interested. This depends greatly on societal factors and conditions, but significant portions of any given population will be, for all intents, followers. They will operate under whichever system exists, but will take little action to actively engage in or against a political process.
This has historically been the rationale behind the vanguard system, as if a significantly sized vanguard can be established, the rest of the population can be expected to follow or at least fail to resist.
However, it also means that the system will be vulnerable to corruption and destruction from within, as was witnessed in the Soviet Union under Glasnost, as the majority of the population will lack political engagement to defend a system.
Historically, societal change is driven by radical elements, with majorities following as the movement gains momentum. This however requires a sufficient critical mass of radicalised citizens, particularly in conditions where there is significant benefit to maintaining the present system, or in the face of overwhelming propaganda operating against the socialist option (modern day USA, late 80's USSR)
In conclusion, this means that the masses will only become a weapon, once sufficient groups have been radicalised, and cannot be inherently counted on to defend against reaction. Social questions will often be resolved between smaller radical factions on both sides.
Observation number 4:
Capitalist crisis can cause revolutionary conditions to arise, however, due to different levels of preparedness, regulation and differing local conditions, it is unlikely to affect each region to the same extent. For example, during the current financial crisis, Greece and Spain have been hit far harder than the Scandinavian countries.
This means that while a given crisis may cause revolutionary conditions to arise in one country, it is not likely that these will be duplicated elsewhere.
If outright revolution occurs in one country, reaction from surrounding countries is likely to attempt to contain the revolution and take steps to ensure it does not take hold elsewhere.
In conclusion, any revolution that occurs will almost assuredly be isolated, and have to develop on it's own, unless it is in a position to lend immediate support to other revolutions. Even then, the strength of reaction, particularly if the country is subject to civil war, extensive economic devastation or significant repression will limit this support significantly.
From these observations, we can conclude that world revolution, on the present political scene is exceedingly unlikely. This presents significant questions for the traditional view of Marxism, with many possible solutions that have traditionally been abandoned on the basis of not being revolutionary.
1: Should revolution be abandoned and postponed, taking the time now to radicalise and build revolutionary support?
2: Should left movements integrate themselves into mainstream political processes to build working class support?
3: Should shorter, more immediate goals be focused on, rather than long term revolution? (immediate workers rights, limitation of corporate media control etc)
4: Should various degrees of “democratic socialism” and “workers capitalism” be viewed as intermediate, achievable goals? (for example late USSR, Cuba, Venezuela)
If the answer is none of the above, but to withdraw from the political process while waiting for the world revolution, the left will be perpetually left in the state it has been since 1991: Floundering, while waiting for utopian conditions to occur.
More importantly, when revolutionary conditions do arise, the left will be as poorly prepared to confront the problems that will arise as they were in 1920.
Traditional thought holds that for socialism to succeed and develop into full communism, revolution must occur broadly, amongst at least several major, industrialised and advanced nations. The failure of world revolution is often held to be the cause for the failure of the soviet bloc.
I would like to make several observations on this topic.
As a point of clarification, throughout this, I will generally use “socialism” in a broader sense than is sometimes used, to describe the series of progressive steps from the overthrow of liberal capitalism and towards state-less communism. This has often been referred to as “state capitalism” or similar terms historically.
It encompasses the full range of “imperfect workers states”.
Observation number 1:
Third world countries are generally held to be have a higher potential for revolution due to more repressive states, lower living conditions, concrete threat of starvation and significantly higher exploitation of it's labour force.
In many regions of the exploited nations, outright slave labour exists, starvation and civil war are often frequent, and dictatorial governments are frequently the norm. Even in nominally democratic states, corruption is often prevalent.
This gives the working class a very strong basis for revolutionary action, however these nations are hampered by their disadvantaged position: They often lack sufficient industry, resource development and administrative networks to adequately function as an isolated state, they are subject to constant foreign manipulation and they can draw on very few allies.
While civil unrest and outright rebellion is likely in such a nation, it will also be isolated almost immediately and subject to foreign intervention and outright suppression.
Additionally, even in the event of successful revolutionary conditions, as there are no strong source of socialist/communist support today, the only foreign that could be secured would be from dictatorial states or liberal democracies, which will guide the direction towards western liberalism.
In conclusion, while many third world countries have conditions that make them likely to revolt, they are unlikely to achieve success.
Observation number 2:
Highly developed, industrialised nations such as the nations of Europe, the US and Japan have the development, administrative and infrastructure networks and productive forces to ensure a functioning socialist state for their citizens, however these countries are highly unlikely to achieve serious revolutionary conditions.
This is due to a number of factors, including the existence of social welfare systems, political pluralism which absorbs dissent directed at the government into the system and freedom of speech which, while often ineffective due to media control by corporations serves as a valve of release for frustration and revolutionary sentiment.
Due to easier access into the political system, dissident groups are encouraged to operate within the system, thus removing their revolutionary potential.
In conclusion, this means that while a highly developed nation has a superior ability to administer a socialist state, and consequently also a superior ability to resist reaction and foreign pressure, it is also less likely to achieve revolutionary sentiments.
Observation number 3:
In any nation, whether revolutionary or not, large segments of the population will be non-political or distantly interested. This depends greatly on societal factors and conditions, but significant portions of any given population will be, for all intents, followers. They will operate under whichever system exists, but will take little action to actively engage in or against a political process.
This has historically been the rationale behind the vanguard system, as if a significantly sized vanguard can be established, the rest of the population can be expected to follow or at least fail to resist.
However, it also means that the system will be vulnerable to corruption and destruction from within, as was witnessed in the Soviet Union under Glasnost, as the majority of the population will lack political engagement to defend a system.
Historically, societal change is driven by radical elements, with majorities following as the movement gains momentum. This however requires a sufficient critical mass of radicalised citizens, particularly in conditions where there is significant benefit to maintaining the present system, or in the face of overwhelming propaganda operating against the socialist option (modern day USA, late 80's USSR)
In conclusion, this means that the masses will only become a weapon, once sufficient groups have been radicalised, and cannot be inherently counted on to defend against reaction. Social questions will often be resolved between smaller radical factions on both sides.
Observation number 4:
Capitalist crisis can cause revolutionary conditions to arise, however, due to different levels of preparedness, regulation and differing local conditions, it is unlikely to affect each region to the same extent. For example, during the current financial crisis, Greece and Spain have been hit far harder than the Scandinavian countries.
This means that while a given crisis may cause revolutionary conditions to arise in one country, it is not likely that these will be duplicated elsewhere.
If outright revolution occurs in one country, reaction from surrounding countries is likely to attempt to contain the revolution and take steps to ensure it does not take hold elsewhere.
In conclusion, any revolution that occurs will almost assuredly be isolated, and have to develop on it's own, unless it is in a position to lend immediate support to other revolutions. Even then, the strength of reaction, particularly if the country is subject to civil war, extensive economic devastation or significant repression will limit this support significantly.
From these observations, we can conclude that world revolution, on the present political scene is exceedingly unlikely. This presents significant questions for the traditional view of Marxism, with many possible solutions that have traditionally been abandoned on the basis of not being revolutionary.
1: Should revolution be abandoned and postponed, taking the time now to radicalise and build revolutionary support?
2: Should left movements integrate themselves into mainstream political processes to build working class support?
3: Should shorter, more immediate goals be focused on, rather than long term revolution? (immediate workers rights, limitation of corporate media control etc)
4: Should various degrees of “democratic socialism” and “workers capitalism” be viewed as intermediate, achievable goals? (for example late USSR, Cuba, Venezuela)
If the answer is none of the above, but to withdraw from the political process while waiting for the world revolution, the left will be perpetually left in the state it has been since 1991: Floundering, while waiting for utopian conditions to occur.
More importantly, when revolutionary conditions do arise, the left will be as poorly prepared to confront the problems that will arise as they were in 1920.