Can we "create" the Revolution?

[JPSartre12]

Comrades, a thought has just popped into my head and I would like your opinions regarding it.

The Revolution is not going to be a single, spontaneous event that randomly takes place one day - it will the glorious culmination of political struggles, capitalism's internal contradictions ripping it apart at the seams, pressure from a class-conscious proletariat, material conditions, and so on. It will not occur randomly, but be the result of a revolutionary political atmosphere.

Is there anything that we, as revolutionaries, can do to create the political climate necessary to facilitate the revolution? As much as I dislike the word, should "terrorist" (and I use this word very loosely and only grudgingly) actions be taken on our part to bait the capitalist system, test its strengths, raise revolutionary consciousness, and so on?

Perhaps run revolutionaries for political office. Or spray-paint symbols on bourgeois institutions, or maybe break a few windows. Or spread revolutionary literature to more people, or hold more meetings. Are there "aggressive" actions, for lack of a better word, that we can do now to expose the bourgeoisie for the oppressors that they are and create a revolutionary political climate?

Your thoughts, comrades?

[bcbm]

Perhaps run revolutionaries for political office. Or spray-paint symbols on bourgeois institutions, or maybe break a few windows. Or spread revolutionary literature to more people, or hold more meetings.
isnt all of that happening now?

[JPSartre12]

isnt all of that happening now?

Yes, there are small pockets of resistance here and there throughout the world. I mean something bigger, bolder, more dramatic, more attention-grabbing.

[Aziz]

Revolution is always occurring in society as the old battles with the new for domination.

[Comrade Samuel]

Not the first to thinks this up, generally this kind of behavior is viewed as counter-productive as it shows us in a very negative light to just about everybody other than fellow revolutionaries.

Not to mention a broken window or two doesn't make the workers quit and overthrow their oppressors, it just makes them repair another window.

[Hermes]

Yes, there are small pockets of resistance here and there throughout the world. I mean something bigger, bolder, more dramatic, more attention-grabbing.

To be honest, wouldn't something bigger, bolder, more dramatic, and more attention-grabbing be the same thing on a slightly larger scale? The more people that are doing it, the less of a fringe/isolated movement it becomes, and hopefully, the less people that will be alienated by these tactics.

[bcbm]

Yes, there are small pockets of resistance here and there throughout the world. I mean something bigger, bolder, more dramatic, more attention-grabbing.

in the 70s people were hijacking jets, doing bombings and assassinating politicians. this sort of stuff has always been happening. it isnt really a factor

[Positivist]

Petty vandalism outside of mass riots is hopelessly counterproductive to the revolutionary cause, as are any minor assaults on property and what not. The last thing we socialists need to do is blow up some bridges and reinforce the already negative stigmas attached to our ideologies.

[coda]

<<Is there anything that we, as revolutionaries, can do to create the political climate necessary to facilitate the revolution?>>

The key word is Organize!

but a little bit of sabotage against capitalism can't hurt either.

[Positivist]

<<Is there anything that we, as revolutionaries, can do to create the political climate necessary to facilitate the revolution?>>

The key word is Organize!

but a little bit of sabotage against capitalism can't hurt either.

No organized sabotage can't hurt, but brazenly destroying property can, has and will.

[coda]

No, don't blow up bridges!

[agnixie]

No, don't blow up bridges!

Yeah, what's this with easily influenced idiots and bridges; we'll need the goddamn bridges to move things around.

[coda]

<<but brazenly destroying property can, has and will>>

Yes, it can hurt capitalism.

my own position is anything is a legitimate means to me as long as innocent people and animals aren't injured or destroyed along the way.. (and I have a very broad defintion of innocent .) if not.. then Sabotage, direct action away.....

but that's my opinion. and i'm not endorsing it.. i know others have their equally valid own..

[JPSartre12]

Petty vandalism outside of mass riots is hopelessly counterproductive to the revolutionary cause, as are any minor assaults on property and what not. The last thing we socialists need to do is blow up some bridges and reinforce the already negative stigmas attached to our ideologies.

Unfortunately, I think you're right :closedeyes: I wish that there was more that we could do to instigate it


The key word is Organize!

but a little bit of sabotage against capitalism can't hurt either.

^ Of course! :lol: But what would be the line that we draw between "little bit of sabotage" and and counter-productive destruction?

[RedHammer]

Random, isolated vandalism is only going to make people say "those damn kids!"

That being said, what we can do is street protests, strikes, and occupations, but this time with an openly socialist agenda.

I've always thought it'd be amazing if we could get together 1,000 people or more in unison singing the Internationale outside some major area, and get media coverage for it.

[coda]

<<Yeah, what's this with easily influenced idiots and bridges; we'll need the goddamn bridges to move things around.>>

i agree, we'll need those bridges! we have to be smart in our destuction.. :)

[Positivist]

I don't think breaking a bank window is gonna bother anyone but destroying anything where people are hurt, at least today, will do nothing but injure the movement. This applies to the police and military too (atleast for now.)

[RedHammer]

I don't think breaking a bank window is gonna bother anyone but destroying anything where people are hurt, at least today, will do nothing but injure the movement. This applies to the police and military too (atleast for now.)
Exactly. The way to win over the working class will be when we react to capitalist aggression. We need to let the capitalists demonstrate to the entire world, as they have been doing in many ways, that they are the enemy. Then we react.

I read in a Yahoo article that some historian predicts mass riots and social unrest in the near future, as part of a pattern in American history of social unrest every 50 or so years (1870, 1920, 1970). Makes sense.

[Aziz]

Activism, Guerrilla games, dropping out all do nothing.

Communists do not create communism through power of will, the workers will bring about a communist society, if and when they realise their own predicament, role in society and take control of the means of production.

Occupy, leftism and activism are in my opinion pointless, they can not change things, as the 60's activism did not, the racial changes were the only gain from that time and they were conceded because of the massive black working class uprisings, not the sit in activism of MLK or the students marching with banners.

One thing that always stuck with me, despite being from a leftist was, when all else fails to organise the community, conditions will.

[Rafiq]

No, you cannot "create" a revolution. A certain level of class consciousnesses must exist among hte proletarian population before they start making revolutionary demands.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Yes, there are small pockets of resistance here and there throughout the world. I mean something bigger, bolder, more dramatic, more attention-grabbing. We could sell shoes.

[Beeth]

Activism is extremely important but it has to have a plan in educating the public on some level - not abstract concepts straight from Marxist lit. but something the common man can relate to. Besides, there is no formula, and hence no direct answer to this question. Why? Because while situations give birth to ideas, it is equally true that ideas can influence people and even change situations in some respects. Hence, it is fallacious to imagine that we have to wait for some things to happen first before aiming at a revolution ... all in the name of historical materialism. It is a continual, dynamic process.

[Red Banana]

The main task at hand for now is raising class consciousness. We have to do that before we can get anything else done. Most people in America don't even know what "socialism" means; just that it's some sort of bad thing, and think that if you just work hard you'll become rich someday. It's our duty to put the class antagonisms of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie at the forefront of the international political/economic discussion and expose people to socialist alternatives. Only once this happens and the majority of workers are behind or sympathize with socialist movements will violent/destructive tactics ever be useful to us. Organization, action, and material conditions are extremely important to culminate revolution but class consciousness is key.

[RedSonRising]

What we need is a cohesive front of organizations spreading ideas of revolutions on all fronts. Revolutionary music widely distributed, political guerrilla marketing, a party or coalition of parties, a country-wide newsletter, occupations and legislative attempts at turning over ownership of unused industry and housing units, etc...all coming from the same unified source. We have many progressive groups and efforts in each country, but we lack the glue that make us an interdependent network of anti-systemic forces recognizable to the public at large.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To the OP:

Revolution certainly won't be spontaneous. It will be, as you say, a culmination of struggles. I strongly suggest you read Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet, 'The Mass Strike'. It is short and accessible, and explains very clearly how defensive economic struggles (such as trade union action or collective defence of existing working conditions and pay) and offensive political struggles (political demands by conscious workers) intertwine to lead to the mass strike, the point at which the bourgeoisie is overrun by the proletariat. Capitalist society ceases to function in any meaningful way and the workers seize power.

The organised 'left' could, I believe, play some part in this, but only if they chance from the current situation, where each little sect seems to harbour dreams of being the 'next' Bolshevik party. Rather, those who are already politically conscious have, i believe, a duty to use their expertise and knowledge to firstly educate, then agitate amongst the working class and, if needs be, offer organisational help too.

But in answer to your basic question, no, revolution cannot be 'created' as such. It will happen when material conditions are such that the working class has no other means to redress their grievances than by waging united class struggle against the bourgeoisie. At this point, it will obviously help to have a proletariat that is educated, that can agitate in the most effective ways and is organised. But these are secondary to what I consider a basic truth: genuine workers' revolution will be of the working class, not on behalf of the working class or even with the support of the working class. It will be the working class' own work as a class, not as a sect or a party.

[RedHammer]

The most vicious threat against workers' revolution is the concession. Concessions made by bourgeois reform parties serve to diminish class consciousness and pacify class unrest.

If concessions had not been made in the United States throughout its history, revolts would surely have happened on a wide scale.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The most vicious threat against workers' revolution is the concession. Concessions made by bourgeois reform parties serve to diminish class consciousness and pacify class unrest.

If concessions had not been made in the United States throughout its history, revolts would surely have happened on a wide scale.

Reformism - when enacted by the bourgeoisie rather than by mis-guided DemSocs - can be seen not as a 'threat' but merely as an extension of the most vicious threat against revolution: Capital. Capital is the greatest threat to revolution, since it is that which has the power to destroy. Capital uses politics as a tool of propaganda; when it needs to introduce placatory reforms, it does so (FDR, UK 1945-73 etc.), when it needs to tack to the far-right, it also does (corporatism in Fascist Italy, in Nazi Germany).

The main threat is capitalism, in all its forms: free-market, big-state, fascist.

[brigadista]

so can i ask what if people dont have jobs?

[Mr. Natural]

The OP asks, "Is there anything we, as revolutionaries, can do to create the political climate necessary to facilitate the revolution?"

solidarity forever suggests my answer in responding, "The key word is organize."

Yes, the key word/concept is "organize," and revolutionaries have never known how to organize within capitalism to develop revolutionary processes into anarchist/communist societies. History is a proof of this.

The solution--unavailable to Marx and Engels--is to employ the new sciences of the organization of life and the cosmos to learn to organize. Life on Earth emerges from the self-organization of matter into living systems, and people are self-organizing matter, and people and communism are living systems.

Life, people, communism, and revolution have a natural organization that revolutionaries must learn to employ, and so far, almost no one at Revleft has given this brand new, deeply radical, revolutionary, natural approach to "What Must Be Done" any consideration.

Aziz posted, "When all else fails to organize the community, conditions will." No, present conditions have been organized by capitalism, and this represents a mental and physical imprisonment of humanity. We must learn to organize in the pattern of life against the pattern of capitalism.

Rafiq wrote, "A certain level of class consciousness must exist among the proletarian population before they start making revolutionary demands." Okay, but where might this class consciousness come from, and what might it be a consciousness of? I insist this must be a grassroots (proletarian) comprehension and employment of nature's communist organization and emergent, revolutionary processes.

Real Democracy echoed Rafiq in stating, "The main task at hand for now is raising class consciousness." Again: the necessary consciousness must include the universal pattern of organization of life's evolutionary/revolutionary/emergent communist communities, which is mortally opposed by capitalism's organization that functions as a cancer of life and community.

The new scientific comprehension of the organization of life and community is brought to Earth for popular understanding in the theoretical physicist Fritjof Capra's Web of Life (1996).

Scientific socialism and its revolutionary proponents must become scientific, dammit!

My red-green best.

[human strike]

Petty vandalism outside of mass riots is hopelessly counterproductive to the revolutionary cause, as are any minor assaults on property and what not. The last thing we socialists need to do is blow up some bridges and reinforce the already negative stigmas attached to our ideologies.

Then perhaps we should abandon ideology?

[JPSartre12]

Then perhaps we should abandon ideology?

Can you elaborate, please?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't see a problem with vandalism or sabotage. If your organization is running into a problem where people don't want to listen to you because some other leftists broke windows or fucked with trains, then chances are that they weren't going to listen to you drone on and on about how glorious comrade Lenin stated in 1918 that the workers blah blah blah.

If your tactics aren't working then you should come up with some new ones.

[Buttress]

To "incite" a revolution, you must first have numbers. Otherwise it will be shrugged off by the ruling class and the persons involved will be smeared in the public eye by the media and the state. This is trivial to do when the numbers are small. But when the numbers increase to a point where every second or third worker could be involved in something big, the media will start to smear the bourgeoisie in a manner of subtlety similar to the capitalist media smearing unionists and other dissidents. There will be a renaissance of independant, cooperatively run press. This will serve to educate and agitate. You will get more strikes and an increasingly unhinged state. At this point, all you'd have to do is organise a general strike and the state will be in the proletariat's hands by the evening. That is assuming, of course, that the police hasn't been bolstered and well-armed beforehand. The bourgeoisie has had plenty of time to prepare for a revolution.

But to "create" the revolution, you'll need to get the numbers. People have suggested radical marketing in this thread and I would agree with them. Popularising leftist concepts and literature is a must. Raising class consciousness is obvious, but do not expect people (especially in western society) to listen to you unless you are willing to provide a relatively simple, almost liberal, entry point into this thought. Occupy, for all its flaws, is an entry point that has opened many eyes to the left. More of that, perhaps (but more coherent).

Or you could simply wait for the system to collapse and for workers to get fed up on their own accord and naturally arrive at anti-capitalist thought.

[robbo203]

To anyone entertaining thoughts to the contrary let it be said loudly and clearly:
"you cant blow up a social relationship"

http://libcom.org/library/you-cant-blow-up-social-relationship

[Teacher]

Agent provocateurs are everywhere.

[Art Vandelay]

To the OP:

Revolution certainly won't be spontaneous. It will be, as you say, a culmination of struggles. I strongly suggest you read Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet, 'The Mass Strike'. It is short and accessible, and explains very clearly how defensive economic struggles (such as trade union action or collective defence of existing working conditions and pay) and offensive political struggles (political demands by conscious workers) intertwine to lead to the mass strike, the point at which the bourgeoisie is overrun by the proletariat. Capitalist society ceases to function in any meaningful way and the workers seize power.

The organised 'left' could, I believe, play some part in this, but only if they chance from the current situation, where each little sect seems to harbour dreams of being the 'next' Bolshevik party. Rather, those who are already politically conscious have, i believe, a duty to use their expertise and knowledge to firstly educate, then agitate amongst the working class and, if needs be, offer organisational help too.

But in answer to your basic question, no, revolution cannot be 'created' as such. It will happen when material conditions are such that the working class has no other means to redress their grievances than by waging united class struggle against the bourgeoisie. At this point, it will obviously help to have a proletariat that is educated, that can agitate in the most effective ways and is organised. But these are secondary to what I consider a basic truth: genuine workers' revolution will be of the working class, not on behalf of the working class or even with the support of the working class. It will be the working class' own work as a class, not as a sect or a party.

The mass strike has shown itself to be a failure over and over again; to paraphrase what other comrades have said in the past, the mass strike essentially attempts to con the proletariat into taking power. While the mass strike can be useful as a tactic, at times, it has shown itself to be practically incapable of overthrowing the Bourgeoisie. How many general strikes has Greece had again in the last ten years?

[Art Vandelay]

I don't see a problem with vandalism or sabotage. If your organization is running into a problem where people don't want to listen to you because some other leftists broke windows or fucked with trains, then chances are that they weren't going to listen to you drone on and on about how glorious comrade Lenin stated in 1918 that the workers blah blah blah.

If your tactics aren't working then you should come up with some new ones.

Yeah I agree, so maybe anarchist should come up with some tactics other than the shit that they have been doing over the past century, which frankly alienates the working class from our movement. I mean, coming from a former individualist/insurrectionist, I get it, I really do. Not only is it one of the only ways to attack capital (in the present time) but it is also personally liberating (plus hella fun) from all this fucked up alienation that we feel. I went out and played urban geurilla for a while, it just really is not effective. Let's get doing some real organizing.

[RedHammer]

Or you could simply wait for the system to collapse and for workers to get fed up on their own accord and naturally arrive at anti-capitalist thought.

This is the worst course of [non] action.

[Buttress]

This is the worst course of [non] action.

I agree, but sometimes it seems it is the only course of action the left can actually agree on.

[Geiseric]

An agreement built on nihilism, an agreement based on recognition and acceptence of disagreement, doesn't make any sense for moving foward. If somebody wants to be a sectarian, let em, but most of the groups out there these days are completely misleading to their adherants, members, sympathizers... The only line that we should be agreeing on is building a workers party of some sort, that is supported on a mass basis because its demands are the interests of the working class, since it is made up of, organized, and ran by class conscious proletarians.

[Thirsty Crow]

C
The Revolution is not going to be a single, spontaneous event that randomly takes place one day - it will the glorious culmination of political struggles, capitalism's internal contradictions ripping it apart at the seams, pressure from a class-conscious proletariat, material conditions, and so on. It will not occur randomly, but be the result of a revolutionary political atmosphere.

Is there anything that we, as revolutionaries, can do to create the political climate necessary to facilitate the revolution? As much as I dislike the word, should "terrorist" (and I use this word very loosely and only grudgingly) actions be taken on our part to bait the capitalist system, test its strengths, raise revolutionary consciousness, and so on?I think revolutionaries should recognize that it is their task to conceive of and transform into concrete practice ways to forment class consciousness and escalating class struggle.
In other words, yes, there is a role to organized revolutionary groups.
The actual practices of these groups should be conceived in relation to the particular conditions prevailing in each region and country, but I think there are some, let's say, constants in social and political development that necessitate only one set of positions and practices and not others. A concrete example would be participation in elections, and even farther, participation in coalition governments. The former is, in my opinion, almost a guarantee of a developing opportunism among the ranks of the (nominally) revolutionary organization and a terrible bait for the working class, which cannot function so as to foster independend class activity (escalating and outreaching immediate struggles such as strikes which can lead to, due to their specific aspect, their already politiczed character, the formation of class wide bodies of struggles such as territorial councils - this is only one example) but rather to channel the energy and a potential for action and development into undoubtedly reformist direction.
The latter, participation in government, speaks for itself, and I take it to signal the final stage of political degeneration of a nominally workers', revolutionary organization. Class collaboration at its finest.

[Rusty Shackleford]

please allow me to quote myself from another similar thread in learning.


Heres the thing about revolution, it is not 'made' or fabricated out of thin air by any organization or the working class or bourgeoisie by themselves. Revolution only happens in periods of massive capitalist crisis. And as seen in history, revolutions tend to start in one locale (in a nation-state) or in areas with extremely similar culture which transcends national borders.

After the 1917 revolution, many short lived revolutions sprung up across the globe and certainly across eastern europe. After the rebellion in Tunisia ousted Ben-Ali, rebellions popped up all across the 'arab world' (though i would not call them revolutions since none of the rebellions have produced an actual change in class relations)

Dont look at it as if one set plan will make it happen. All things are in motion. Also, back to the issue of organizations and class. History has shown that in periods of extreme capitalist crisis, and when there is strong organization amongst the working class, have there been attempted or successful revolutions. Without some form of organization, it is likely it could end up as nothing more than pockets of insurrection or rioting. Though, organization can quickly develop during those periods as well.


there are so many variables that it cannot be 'planned' years in advance. And what it really amounts to is in non-revolutionary periods, you agitate, and in revolutionary periods (periods of crisis when it looks most likely a revolution is possible) its taking advantage of when the ruling class is at its weakest and the working class is at its strongest.





Also, spreading revolution isnt like playing a strategy game. you dont invade another country to bring them socialism. There is no set time table or anything. BUT! A revolution is always 'on the clock' if it exists in a world still dominated by capital. Khrushchev was wrong on this and had the naive outlook that because socialism is a superior system, it will outlast capitalism/imperialism and that imperialism is 'on the clock'



Ill also maybe touch up on some points in a bit. Also, can i suggest this be moved to learning?

[Jimmie Higgins]

We all know the Marxist phrase about the ruling ideas of all eras being the ideas of that era's rulers... well revolution is the exception, the time when all that is up for grabs.

Look at the Egyptian Revolution. People representing the interests of all classes could rally behind the idea of removing Mubarak... but then what? That's when class interests among the forces involved in the revolution diverged... some wanted a more liberalized neoliberalism while many of the poor had specifically working class grievances. Who came out the strongest through the movement: the Muslim Brothers because even under illegal conditions they had developed an organization and had roots in major population centers. If a revolutionary working class group had been able to organize and build 100,000s members throughout urban areas, then there would be a vehicle with organic connections to [millions of others in] the class that could express and independant working class strategy forward: socialist revolution, worker's power. Nothing is guaranteed or certain, but when there was a point when the whole class system is jostled and if workers are able to work together then the spontaneous neighborhood barricades could become the seeds of a working class defense network; the strikes in Suez and other ports and manufacturing areas could become coordinated; Occupied Tarhir square could become a place where worker representatives and neighborhood reps get together to do that coordinating and begin to run society.

So we can't "make a revolution" but we can prepare our side for a revolutionary situation: we can begin to link various fighters in the class struggle; we can learn lessons from past struggles; learn how to overcome inter-class divisions and oppressions; learn how to struggle and work together in the workplace and so on.