fractal-vortex
26th October 2012, 10:26
What might be a program for a revolutionary forum?
1.
As I browse through RevLeft forum, I notice that what is lacking is a program.
To explain what I mean, I would like to quote M. Popov who studied together with narodnik-terrorist N. Kibalchich in the Medical-surgical Academy. He remembers revolutionary circles that were formed in the late 1870s in St. Petersburg: There were gatherings of youth on which problems which were posed by life and literature were discussed, where we listened to lectures on social issues, read literature smuggled from abroad. The first circle of such character of which I was a member gathered in the apartment of Kibalchich on Kronwerke Avenue. In this circle there was a program on social questions according to which each member of the circle took upon himself this or that social topic and prepared a lecture. On Sundays and Thursdays the lectures were given and discussed; often, these discussions led to passionate debates lasting after the midnight.
So, thats the way one should lead a circle:
1) create a program, consisting of a list of social questions.
2) Each one chooses a problem which s/he likes and prepares a lecture about it.
3) Then all discuss the question presented in the lecture.
In place of circles of XIX century in the era of Internet we have electronic news groups, e-conferences and forums. One of such forums is RevLeft. What I like about the forum is the following:
1) it is an international forum, which protects it from national narrow-mindedness, locking in on narrow national problems.
2) The forum has special study groups, which means that people want to learn something.
3) Theoretical problems of different kinds are raised.
4) After most of the raised issues there is a discussion in which the participants do not abuse one another and try to be tolerant.
However, what is lacking is a program for the different threads of discussion. There are fragments of important issues here and there, but as it is there is no overall direction, it is chaotic, as it should be, in the beginning, in any true grassroots circle, or a movement. Mind you: only in the beginning. Someone should propose a program, in the sense which M. Popov outlines above (for the narodnik circles in Russia).
2.
So, what might such a program consist of?
A more precise definition of what a Revolution is. After all, this is a Revolutionary Left forum.
1. There is a revolution in the production of material things and intellectual products (the industrial and scientific revolution).
2. There is a revolution in social relations (a social revolution proper).
3. There is a revolution in the production and education of human beings.
Focusing on this last concept, I like to point out that Humanity, a human being, is the most important force of production (to use Marxs term). It is not the machines, the technology, as was supposed before. It is the knowledge that drives these machines and technology, and embodied in a human being, in the humanity as a whole. Of course, we understand knowledge to have a dualistic nature (like light): a material and intellectual aspect.
Marx has talked about the relations between forces of production and relations of production as giving rise to revolutions. But he didnt really include humanity among the force of production (although there are significant parts in his text where he has an idea about the importance of science and engineers, managers, in organization of production). But this was for obvious reasons: Marx was living in the mechanical age, in the age of the appearance of primitive machines. But we live in what the capitalist apologists call the knowledge economy (how one can be economical about knowledge?) and in the age of service economy (i.e. those knowledge economists being servile to their masters).
So the concept of a revolution has not 2, but 3 components: 1) production of things, 2) social relations, 3) sexual and educational revolution. In other words, it is necessary to include sexual revolution (and what is close to it: feminism, women liberation, etc.) in our overall concept of a revolution. Agree or not?
3.
Knowledge has fractal nature. This means that when one takes a word (e.g. revolution, love, etc.) and treats it as a concept, whole new domains appear. And again: each part of these new domains is a concept in itself that opens up to a new world. It is for this reason that when we will be trying to define a concept of revolution, the technical tool of a hypertext (a link that leads to an explanation of the concept, not on a tangent, but inside the thing itself) will be good.
Every big revolutionary wave starts with a revolution in the production of things (e.g. Neolithic revolution, Industrial revolution, etc.) This is Praxis, in its technological sense of the word. So, we need to create and discuss revolution in the material culture of humanity, from its very dawn, i.e. when first humans picked up sticks and started using fire as a tool. The obvious ages in this group would be:
1) the Stone age (the old stone age, and the new stone age).
2) The Bronze age.
3) The Iron age.
Were still using iron and steel as a primary building material. But that is obviously not on the rise. Rather, were advancing towards a whole new age when we will be using artificial materials in the most important aspects of production. This might be a result of a nanotechnology. Tentatively, we might call the new age an atom age, as nanotechnology has to do with re-arrangement of atoms to produce a desired result (e.g. an organism).
So, we can list the 4 ages of humanity, create a link to each, and in the hypertext briefly or not so briefly sketch, define each of these ages, from the point of material culture.
4.
Material culture is closely linked to intellectual culture. In fact, if the first is the practice, then the second is the theory. A proper approach to any activity embodies these two into one blend, the truth (see Hegels Phenomenology, preface).
Revolution in our intellectual culture might be considered from the aspect of a structure of knowledge:
1) revolution in physics. Main tendencies in development of physics: in history and today. Here, we may touch upon astrophysics (cosmology), as we need to explain the origin of the Universe, and this is based on our physics theories. Properly, any subject, e.g. cosmology, should be treated briefly from a historical point of view (e.g. previous theories of cosmology) and we should dwell on the modern concepts about it.
2) Revolutionary ideas in mathematics: both in history and today, their possible significance for the material world (e.g. Lobachevskys geometry as leading to Einsteins general relativity, or Mandelbrots concept of a fractal as explaining the nature of knowledge, similarly for Godels Theorem of Incompleteness).
3) After the Universe was formed, the stellar systems and planets started to appear. Hence, we need to discuss geology both astro-geology, as on Mars or the moon, and geology of the Earth. Then, we need to trace the evolution of chemistry the evolution of the elements into molecules, modern innovations in chemistry leading to nanotechnology (information technology owes a great deal to chemistry and electronics). Then life starts to appear: botany and biology. In view of importance of sexual revolution, a special focus here should be reproduction of plants and animals, and their evolution (theory of Darwin as providing a good antidote to religion).
4) Then humanity starts to appear. Here, we need to compare ideas of human history: different forms that its understanding took (the oral history, the epic poem, the written history), different philosophies of history, hence different ideas on the meaning of life (purpose in life), and different moralities of different societies. Obviously, we need to trace different forms of societies, based on different modes of production (primitive communism during the Stone Age, slavery under the Bronze Age and the early Iron Age, feudalism, capitalism, Stalinism as early form of socialism). Here, we may give a concept of a social revolution, but it is better to do it in the next section, as this one is about intellectual culture. Simply provide a link from ideas of human history to the idea of a permanent in human history social revolution/evolution: from one formation to another.
And, by the way, revolution and evolution are not two separate and opposing phenomena, but always come together, in the sense that quantitative changes (the evolution) lead to qualitative change (the revolution). Hence, change in general has this dual evolutionary/revolutionary aspect.
5) After we should provide ideas of beauty, aesthetics, for these are related to our notions of morality and the good. Music, art, poetry, video (film, photography) and creativity in general should be treated here. Each must be taken both from a historical point of view, and from its present praxis.
5.
Two more aspects of revolution are to be treated: social revolution and sexual revolution.
When we discuss social revolution, the remark of Hegel in Phenomenology should be kept in mind. It is to the effect that when discussing any concept, we should approach it both as an object and a subject. This means that a revolution, first, consists of objective events that progress is certain law-like manner: stages leading up, and stages leading down. Second, a revolution must be grasped together with the subject who makes it, i.e. the revolutionary organizations and the masses behind these. So, a history of revolutionary organizations is a sine qua non for any understanding of a revolution. I would advance a hypothesis: the more modern and complex a revolution is, the more important becomes the history of revolutionary organization, its struggle of factions, its mode of operation. For example, history of the Jacobin club is not as important as the history of the Bolshevik party.
A historic concept of a social revolution is very complex and requires a work of many people, with one goal in common. Each mode of production, each form of social relations is preceded, and accompanied, by a great revolution (these forms are outlined above, in section 4, paragraph 4). There are types of social revolutions. For example, the English revolution (XVII century) and the French revolution (XVIII century) form one type, and the Russian and the Chinese revolutions of XX century form a second type. Each type has a subtype, e.g. the Russian/Chinese type was also manifested in the Yugoslav, Korean, Cuban, and Vietnamese revolutions.
Obviously, an epoch for each type of revolution must come to an end. We will longer have democratic revolutions (of the English/French type), and the era of the Marxist-Leninist types of revolutions in semi-backward, or really backward, countries also appears to have come to a close. Like the peasant wars of 16, 17, and 18th centuries are not here any longer, although the peasants are still there, and peasant based guerrillas are also there, it is not probable that the examples of the Soviet Union and China can inspire masses today anywhere (I mean the bureaucrats of Moscow, or the Russian billionaires, or the Chinese exploitation of its workers and population in general, on the one hand, and the Chinese tycoons and the Chinese Communist party bureaucracy, its lies and corruption, on the other hand).
So, we stand before a new type of a social revolution, like we stand on the threshold of a new age of production, the atom age.
This new type of revolution will be global. This was illustrated by the recent events of the Arab Spring which has quickly spread into Occupy movement around the world. In this sense, it is a simultaneous revolution. Most likely, it will start again in the Muslim, Arab countries, as exploited by imperialism, on the one hand, yet possessing enough technology and education as to realize that a better world is possible. Educated but unemployed youth were the trigger of the Arab spring in 2010-11.
So, I suggest making a chart of modern social revolutions modern can include the English and the French type of revolutions and giving us a brief, but true idea of each, while keeping the histories of their revolutionary parties in prime focus. Social revolutions and violent struggles in XX and XXI centuries are particularly important. Terrorism of Islamists should not be forgotten, but should be a point of primary investigation. It is possible that a new wave of revolutionaries will arise in these countries, as Marxists have superseded the narodnik movement in Russia in late XIX century.
6.
Events in Egypt in 2011 were precipitated by one girl appearing on YouTube and saying to men: if you guys have any balls, then come out with me to the central square and protest. In general, a social revolution is closely linked to the women revolution, trying to shake off their load, trying to free themselves in sexual and every other way.
When discussing the sexual revolution, it should also be done first historically. We need to collect together the different pieces we know from history where there were attempts for womens equality with men, such as the preaching of Christ, or for free love, as in The Decameron of Boccaccio. When discussing modernity, we should note polyamory and group marriage, as leading up to communists living together.
Similarly for education: first, we need to make a historical review, and most of all, focus on the modern trends in progressive attempts at education. Important to keep in mind: 1) progressive education is likely to be not in the framework of traditional schools and universities; 2) education is not only that of the mind, but also in material culture and in social relations.
7.
Finally, I would like to suggest for participants of the RevLeft to hold periodic congresses, in order to meet each other face to face, for information is obtained thus in a different manner. Such congresses should be arranged by a Steering committee, selected especially for the purpose. The committee should provide: 1) the agenda for the Congress. The agenda should include both intellectual and physical activities, if the Congress is to be arranged for example as a summer camp. 2) Help for those who cannot come for financial or political reasons. For example, can you imagine discussing imperialism, in which discussion there will be only reps of the USA, Australia, Germany, etc, but no Indians, or Africans, or Russians?
Preliminary to such congresses, Skype sessions may be held.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Fractal-Vortex
1.
As I browse through RevLeft forum, I notice that what is lacking is a program.
To explain what I mean, I would like to quote M. Popov who studied together with narodnik-terrorist N. Kibalchich in the Medical-surgical Academy. He remembers revolutionary circles that were formed in the late 1870s in St. Petersburg: There were gatherings of youth on which problems which were posed by life and literature were discussed, where we listened to lectures on social issues, read literature smuggled from abroad. The first circle of such character of which I was a member gathered in the apartment of Kibalchich on Kronwerke Avenue. In this circle there was a program on social questions according to which each member of the circle took upon himself this or that social topic and prepared a lecture. On Sundays and Thursdays the lectures were given and discussed; often, these discussions led to passionate debates lasting after the midnight.
So, thats the way one should lead a circle:
1) create a program, consisting of a list of social questions.
2) Each one chooses a problem which s/he likes and prepares a lecture about it.
3) Then all discuss the question presented in the lecture.
In place of circles of XIX century in the era of Internet we have electronic news groups, e-conferences and forums. One of such forums is RevLeft. What I like about the forum is the following:
1) it is an international forum, which protects it from national narrow-mindedness, locking in on narrow national problems.
2) The forum has special study groups, which means that people want to learn something.
3) Theoretical problems of different kinds are raised.
4) After most of the raised issues there is a discussion in which the participants do not abuse one another and try to be tolerant.
However, what is lacking is a program for the different threads of discussion. There are fragments of important issues here and there, but as it is there is no overall direction, it is chaotic, as it should be, in the beginning, in any true grassroots circle, or a movement. Mind you: only in the beginning. Someone should propose a program, in the sense which M. Popov outlines above (for the narodnik circles in Russia).
2.
So, what might such a program consist of?
A more precise definition of what a Revolution is. After all, this is a Revolutionary Left forum.
1. There is a revolution in the production of material things and intellectual products (the industrial and scientific revolution).
2. There is a revolution in social relations (a social revolution proper).
3. There is a revolution in the production and education of human beings.
Focusing on this last concept, I like to point out that Humanity, a human being, is the most important force of production (to use Marxs term). It is not the machines, the technology, as was supposed before. It is the knowledge that drives these machines and technology, and embodied in a human being, in the humanity as a whole. Of course, we understand knowledge to have a dualistic nature (like light): a material and intellectual aspect.
Marx has talked about the relations between forces of production and relations of production as giving rise to revolutions. But he didnt really include humanity among the force of production (although there are significant parts in his text where he has an idea about the importance of science and engineers, managers, in organization of production). But this was for obvious reasons: Marx was living in the mechanical age, in the age of the appearance of primitive machines. But we live in what the capitalist apologists call the knowledge economy (how one can be economical about knowledge?) and in the age of service economy (i.e. those knowledge economists being servile to their masters).
So the concept of a revolution has not 2, but 3 components: 1) production of things, 2) social relations, 3) sexual and educational revolution. In other words, it is necessary to include sexual revolution (and what is close to it: feminism, women liberation, etc.) in our overall concept of a revolution. Agree or not?
3.
Knowledge has fractal nature. This means that when one takes a word (e.g. revolution, love, etc.) and treats it as a concept, whole new domains appear. And again: each part of these new domains is a concept in itself that opens up to a new world. It is for this reason that when we will be trying to define a concept of revolution, the technical tool of a hypertext (a link that leads to an explanation of the concept, not on a tangent, but inside the thing itself) will be good.
Every big revolutionary wave starts with a revolution in the production of things (e.g. Neolithic revolution, Industrial revolution, etc.) This is Praxis, in its technological sense of the word. So, we need to create and discuss revolution in the material culture of humanity, from its very dawn, i.e. when first humans picked up sticks and started using fire as a tool. The obvious ages in this group would be:
1) the Stone age (the old stone age, and the new stone age).
2) The Bronze age.
3) The Iron age.
Were still using iron and steel as a primary building material. But that is obviously not on the rise. Rather, were advancing towards a whole new age when we will be using artificial materials in the most important aspects of production. This might be a result of a nanotechnology. Tentatively, we might call the new age an atom age, as nanotechnology has to do with re-arrangement of atoms to produce a desired result (e.g. an organism).
So, we can list the 4 ages of humanity, create a link to each, and in the hypertext briefly or not so briefly sketch, define each of these ages, from the point of material culture.
4.
Material culture is closely linked to intellectual culture. In fact, if the first is the practice, then the second is the theory. A proper approach to any activity embodies these two into one blend, the truth (see Hegels Phenomenology, preface).
Revolution in our intellectual culture might be considered from the aspect of a structure of knowledge:
1) revolution in physics. Main tendencies in development of physics: in history and today. Here, we may touch upon astrophysics (cosmology), as we need to explain the origin of the Universe, and this is based on our physics theories. Properly, any subject, e.g. cosmology, should be treated briefly from a historical point of view (e.g. previous theories of cosmology) and we should dwell on the modern concepts about it.
2) Revolutionary ideas in mathematics: both in history and today, their possible significance for the material world (e.g. Lobachevskys geometry as leading to Einsteins general relativity, or Mandelbrots concept of a fractal as explaining the nature of knowledge, similarly for Godels Theorem of Incompleteness).
3) After the Universe was formed, the stellar systems and planets started to appear. Hence, we need to discuss geology both astro-geology, as on Mars or the moon, and geology of the Earth. Then, we need to trace the evolution of chemistry the evolution of the elements into molecules, modern innovations in chemistry leading to nanotechnology (information technology owes a great deal to chemistry and electronics). Then life starts to appear: botany and biology. In view of importance of sexual revolution, a special focus here should be reproduction of plants and animals, and their evolution (theory of Darwin as providing a good antidote to religion).
4) Then humanity starts to appear. Here, we need to compare ideas of human history: different forms that its understanding took (the oral history, the epic poem, the written history), different philosophies of history, hence different ideas on the meaning of life (purpose in life), and different moralities of different societies. Obviously, we need to trace different forms of societies, based on different modes of production (primitive communism during the Stone Age, slavery under the Bronze Age and the early Iron Age, feudalism, capitalism, Stalinism as early form of socialism). Here, we may give a concept of a social revolution, but it is better to do it in the next section, as this one is about intellectual culture. Simply provide a link from ideas of human history to the idea of a permanent in human history social revolution/evolution: from one formation to another.
And, by the way, revolution and evolution are not two separate and opposing phenomena, but always come together, in the sense that quantitative changes (the evolution) lead to qualitative change (the revolution). Hence, change in general has this dual evolutionary/revolutionary aspect.
5) After we should provide ideas of beauty, aesthetics, for these are related to our notions of morality and the good. Music, art, poetry, video (film, photography) and creativity in general should be treated here. Each must be taken both from a historical point of view, and from its present praxis.
5.
Two more aspects of revolution are to be treated: social revolution and sexual revolution.
When we discuss social revolution, the remark of Hegel in Phenomenology should be kept in mind. It is to the effect that when discussing any concept, we should approach it both as an object and a subject. This means that a revolution, first, consists of objective events that progress is certain law-like manner: stages leading up, and stages leading down. Second, a revolution must be grasped together with the subject who makes it, i.e. the revolutionary organizations and the masses behind these. So, a history of revolutionary organizations is a sine qua non for any understanding of a revolution. I would advance a hypothesis: the more modern and complex a revolution is, the more important becomes the history of revolutionary organization, its struggle of factions, its mode of operation. For example, history of the Jacobin club is not as important as the history of the Bolshevik party.
A historic concept of a social revolution is very complex and requires a work of many people, with one goal in common. Each mode of production, each form of social relations is preceded, and accompanied, by a great revolution (these forms are outlined above, in section 4, paragraph 4). There are types of social revolutions. For example, the English revolution (XVII century) and the French revolution (XVIII century) form one type, and the Russian and the Chinese revolutions of XX century form a second type. Each type has a subtype, e.g. the Russian/Chinese type was also manifested in the Yugoslav, Korean, Cuban, and Vietnamese revolutions.
Obviously, an epoch for each type of revolution must come to an end. We will longer have democratic revolutions (of the English/French type), and the era of the Marxist-Leninist types of revolutions in semi-backward, or really backward, countries also appears to have come to a close. Like the peasant wars of 16, 17, and 18th centuries are not here any longer, although the peasants are still there, and peasant based guerrillas are also there, it is not probable that the examples of the Soviet Union and China can inspire masses today anywhere (I mean the bureaucrats of Moscow, or the Russian billionaires, or the Chinese exploitation of its workers and population in general, on the one hand, and the Chinese tycoons and the Chinese Communist party bureaucracy, its lies and corruption, on the other hand).
So, we stand before a new type of a social revolution, like we stand on the threshold of a new age of production, the atom age.
This new type of revolution will be global. This was illustrated by the recent events of the Arab Spring which has quickly spread into Occupy movement around the world. In this sense, it is a simultaneous revolution. Most likely, it will start again in the Muslim, Arab countries, as exploited by imperialism, on the one hand, yet possessing enough technology and education as to realize that a better world is possible. Educated but unemployed youth were the trigger of the Arab spring in 2010-11.
So, I suggest making a chart of modern social revolutions modern can include the English and the French type of revolutions and giving us a brief, but true idea of each, while keeping the histories of their revolutionary parties in prime focus. Social revolutions and violent struggles in XX and XXI centuries are particularly important. Terrorism of Islamists should not be forgotten, but should be a point of primary investigation. It is possible that a new wave of revolutionaries will arise in these countries, as Marxists have superseded the narodnik movement in Russia in late XIX century.
6.
Events in Egypt in 2011 were precipitated by one girl appearing on YouTube and saying to men: if you guys have any balls, then come out with me to the central square and protest. In general, a social revolution is closely linked to the women revolution, trying to shake off their load, trying to free themselves in sexual and every other way.
When discussing the sexual revolution, it should also be done first historically. We need to collect together the different pieces we know from history where there were attempts for womens equality with men, such as the preaching of Christ, or for free love, as in The Decameron of Boccaccio. When discussing modernity, we should note polyamory and group marriage, as leading up to communists living together.
Similarly for education: first, we need to make a historical review, and most of all, focus on the modern trends in progressive attempts at education. Important to keep in mind: 1) progressive education is likely to be not in the framework of traditional schools and universities; 2) education is not only that of the mind, but also in material culture and in social relations.
7.
Finally, I would like to suggest for participants of the RevLeft to hold periodic congresses, in order to meet each other face to face, for information is obtained thus in a different manner. Such congresses should be arranged by a Steering committee, selected especially for the purpose. The committee should provide: 1) the agenda for the Congress. The agenda should include both intellectual and physical activities, if the Congress is to be arranged for example as a summer camp. 2) Help for those who cannot come for financial or political reasons. For example, can you imagine discussing imperialism, in which discussion there will be only reps of the USA, Australia, Germany, etc, but no Indians, or Africans, or Russians?
Preliminary to such congresses, Skype sessions may be held.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Fractal-Vortex