How do you properly spark a revolution?

[Haunter]

I'll start off by saying that I am a student, not a teacher, so I should apologize in advance if my understanding of the revolutionary process is a bit.. off.
But the way it has been explained to me is basically;
Capitalism, imperialism, and the like of opressive systems are destined to fail.I believe that. I've been told that the revolution really starts the moment that they fail. And that it is a natural progression for the people to stand up and reform.
I find a flaw with this. Why should we wait for the opressive system to self destruct? It undoubtably will, in time, but who knows what people will have to suffer through in the mean-time? Or how long that could take, or if the capitalists themselves find ways to keep the people dependant?
I would like to have faith that when this system does fail, people will just "understand" the revolution and take part. But if it happened right now, at least where I live, they would not.
They would wait for the old system to reconstruct itself, or someone else to fill that void. Someone that is likely no better than who is in charge now.

My point here is that waiting for the system to fail will result in a confused and misdirected populous, that will likely revert to their old ways. So I believe that the revolution must begin *before* the system fails, so that a proper system is in place, leaving no room for the capitalists and all of their friends to take charge once more.
Is that not the reason that the revolutionary period in the 1900s failed? Because the revolutionaries themselves may have known what they were doing, but the populous specifically knew "capitalism" and "imperialism"? The revolutionary spirit started to decline, revolutionary societies were isolated, and the whole scheme failed. This is because capitalism still had a large influence over different parts of the world, and people had not been properly educated as to the ways of the future. It dominated once again, and a "better way to tolerate capitalism" was once more the norm.

My question then is how and when do you properly spark a revolution? I think it's really important to get practical about the idea, as the opposing forces are only growing stronger as the days go by.

[Blake's Baby]

I have a fundamentally different take on the revolutionary process from almost everything you've outlined there, so it may be that we don't even have in the end a common language to discuss this, but I'll give it a go.

I don't believe in a 'final collapse'. I think capitalism can go on grinding us down until the planet is an uninhabitable wasteland, we are all poisoned radioactive cannibal slaves, and any possibility of revolution is destroyed for millennia. In fact, I think if we don't destroy capitalism, this is what will happen.

In the early 20th century, I agree, capitalism still had 'influence' over large numbers of people. The Socialist Parties that betrayed the working class at the time of WWI, the Unions that joined them, the very organisations that the working class had built up during the late 19th century, became organisations for capital. The working class as a whole wasn't able to see that it was necessary to abandon these organisations, they still trusted them to 'get the job done'. Well, the job they did was breaking the revolutionary wave and handing the workers back to the capitalists. We need to rigorously critique the schemes of the past, the parties of the past, and reject everything that stands in the way of the working class coming to consciousness of itself and its mission to overthrow capitalsim.

I don't think we, as revolutionaries, do 'spark a revolution'. I think revolutions are made by the working class. We can agitate, we can explain why revolution is necessary, we can warn against the dangers of remaining quiet or repeating past mistakes, but we don't 'detonate' the revolution.

[RedMaterialist]

You might want to look at Rosa Luxembourg's The Mass Strike. She argues that the mass strike and the revolution are not things which can be turned on at will, but that they are historical events controlled by the social conditions at the time. According to her it is the anarchist tradition which seeks to start the revolution at a time of their choosing. The revolution has to be a spontaneous, socially determined act of the workers. Then it can be led by a disciplined socialist party.

[helot]

According to her it is the anarchist tradition which seeks to start the revolution at a time of their choosing.

and she'd be wrong. I can't for the life of me think of an anarchist who thinks that we can start a revolution at the time of our choosing.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

the real question is: what comes next? as Luxemburg put it, it will be "socialism or barbarism". if capitalism does destroy its own productive capacity as Blake conjectures, the choice gets sadly simpler. I also think capitalism is unsustainable and will not last to see the world into a radioactive wasteland stage, but maybe I haven't played enough Fallout 3.

it would do you well to check out the Lenin's ideas about party organization (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/). many socialists, including here on RevLeft, will tell you that the Bolshevik party was just a vanguard of elitist intellectuals attempting to force Marxism on the working class. the way I see it is that Lenin recruited his party cadre (the "professional revolutionaries") from the working class, using the party structure to facilitate the creation of working-class revolutionary leadership.

you are right to be apprehensive for just waiting for the working class to spontaneously get the right idea. that's not really how strategy, revolutionary or otherwise, works.

[Blake's Baby]

The rejection of a theory of history means that the revolution is an effort of will. That means that the revolution is always possible, and it only requires the correct application of will to have a revolution. Objective historical conditions don't matter. I've heard anarchists claim that communism was possible in 1848, I've even heard anarchists claim it was possible in the 1600s.

[Blake's Baby]

the real question is: what comes next? as Luxemburg put it, it will be "socialism or barbarism". if capitalism does destroy its own productive capacity as Blake conjectures, the choice gets sadly simpler. I also think capitalism is unsustainable and will not last to see the world into a radioactive wasteland stage, but maybe I haven't played enough Fallout 3...

I dispute I made the claim capitalism will destroy its productive capacity. As long has it has slaves it has productive capacity, even if we're diseased and have to eat each other to survive.

I guess Fallout 3 is a video-game, I don't know how much 'enough' is, how about 'none'? I live on this planet, I've seen industrial accidents and the results of capitalism's destruction of the natural environment. I lived for 20 years in a coal-mining/steel-making area, where industrial pollution turned whole towns red, men in their 40s were confined to bed with poisoned lungs, and slag-heaps burned for years at a time. Extrapolating these experiences to conclude that capitalism can poison the earth, water and sky, and damage the whole biosphere, doesn't seem terribly far-fetched to me.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

I dispute I made the claim capitalism will destroy its productive capacity. As long has it has slaves it has productive capacity, even if we're diseased and have to eat each other to survive.

I guess Fallout 3 is a video-game, I don't know how much 'enough' is, how about 'none'? I live on this planet, I've seen industrial accidents and the results of capitalism's destruction of the natural environment. I lived for 20 years in a coal-mining/steel-making area, where industrial pollution turned whole towns red, men in their 40s were confined to bed with poisoned lungs, and slag-heaps burned for years at a time. Extrapolating these experiences to conclude that capitalism can poison the earth, water and sky, and damage the whole biosphere, doesn't seem terribly far-fetched to me.

forgive me for misrepresenting you.

I wasn't attacking your predictions (my version of them or otherwise) and I didn't mean to imply that they are merely fantastic, I just disagree about how history is likely to go. I don't think the situation you outline is impossible, but I think it's far more likely that capitalism will create the conditions of its own destruction in the process of whittling masses of formerly-first world people down to that kind of abjection on a mass scale. that kind of shift in living standards would likely provoke a popular reaction that would destabilize the system, for better or for worse.

[helot]

The rejection of a theory of history means that the revolution is an effort of will. That means that the revolution is always possible, and it only requires the correct application of will to have a revolution. Objective historical conditions don't matter. I've heard anarchists claim that communism was possible in 1848, I've even heard anarchists claim it was possible in the 1600s.

If that's the case then their theory seems a bit dodgy to me. As an anarchist myself i do generally accept historical materialism even if i reject some interpretations of it for being overly simplistic.

[Haunter]

I guess Fallout 3 is a video-game, I don't know how much 'enough' is, how about 'none'? I live on this planet, I've seen industrial accidents and the results of capitalism's destruction of the natural environment. I lived for 20 years in a coal-mining/steel-making area, where industrial pollution turned whole towns red, men in their 40s were confined to bed with poisoned lungs, and slag-heaps burned for years at a time. Extrapolating these experiences to conclude that capitalism can poison the earth, water and sky, and damage the whole biosphere, doesn't seem terribly far-fetched to me.

See, that's where I'm at. I do believe capitalism is unsustainalble, but that it can end in one of two ways. Revolution or destruction. My cardinal fear is that destruction is inevitable if we don't have a highly educated population. My problem with the socialists/pseudo-communists of the past was that, much like many of you may agree, they became elists themselves. The common misconception of communism is that everything will perpetually be run by a governing class who decides what is right for the people. And that's the whole problem with capitalism in the first place.
So, I guess by "spaking a revolution", I really mean "educating the people better". So that when the time comes they can make the right decisions, and not leave it to the revolutionaries themselves.
You're all right- the revolution MUST come at the hands of the working class, not you or I. I just don't have faith that it would be succesful, and I think humanity has a long, long way to go before they're ready.
Which *almost* (in the eyes of a non-revolutionary) makes capitalism seem like the sustainable system right now.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Lenin's model of "sparking" a revolution was appropriate to Russia in 1917, but IMO Rosa Luxemburg's ideas are more applicable here and now.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I have a fundamentally different take on the revolutionary process from almost everything you've outlined there, so it may be that we don't even have in the end a common language to discuss this, but I'll give it a go.

I don't believe in a 'final collapse'. I think capitalism can go on grinding us down until the planet is an uninhabitable wasteland, we are all poisoned radioactive cannibal slaves, and any possibility of revolution is destroyed for millennia. In fact, I think if we don't destroy capitalism, this is what will happen.

In the early 20th century, I agree, capitalism still had 'influence' over large numbers of people. The Socialist Parties that betrayed the working class at the time of WWI, the Unions that joined them, the very organisations that the working class had built up during the late 19th century, became organisations for capital. The working class as a whole wasn't able to see that it was necessary to abandon these organisations, they still trusted them to 'get the job done'. Well, the job they did was breaking the revolutionary wave and handing the workers back to the capitalists. We need to rigorously critique the schemes of the past, the parties of the past, and reject everything that stands in the way of the working class coming to consciousness of itself and its mission to overthrow capitalsim.

I don't think we, as revolutionaries, do 'spark a revolution'. I think revolutions are made by the working class. We can agitate, we can explain why revolution is necessary, we can warn against the dangers of remaining quiet or repeating past mistakes, but we don't 'detonate' the revolution.

If the revolutionary left is ever going to be worth shit this idea of it being separate from the proletariat has to go.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Blanquism is definitely a dead end. I question the applicability of Bolshevik tactics here and now. A revolution here and now would not succeed if it were merely a mechanistic attempt to replay Ten Days That Shook the World.

[prolcon]

Historically Bolshevik tactics were designed to take advantage of conditions that prevailed during the time of the revolutions. I feel like a similar methodology with which to approach determining the best course of action would be applicable, but I don't think anyone will argue in favor of replicating the October Revolution. I just want to stress that we really do ourselves and the working class no favors by waiting and doing nothing in the process. We need to figure out what conditions create revolution in capitalist-imperialist powers.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The difficult question is WHAT to do in order to facilitate the revolutionary process. Back in the 70s there were enough of us to have at least a marginal impact but we fell into sectarianism and dogmatism and most of us burned out and dropped out in the 80s. How do we avoid this vicious cycle?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Blanquism is definitely a dead end. I question the applicability of Bolshevik tactics here and now. A revolution here and now would not succeed if it were merely a mechanistic attempt to replay Ten Days That Shook the World.

I can see how you wouldn't feel Leninism isn't applicable at the moment, but please don't equate it to Blanquism. No intelligent Leninist thinks the next proletarian revolution is going to look very similar to 1917.
IMO we should take from Leninism what is useful to us in our present situation and leave the rest.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would never equate Lenin with Blanquism. Some of his followers have at times exhibited Blanquist tendencies, eg. Kim Il Sung. I have a deep respect for Che Guevara, but can we honestly deny that Focoismo contained a least a strain of Blanquism?

[Yuppie Grinder]

I had you misconstrued, never mind. I wouldn't call Kim Il Sung or Che genuinely Leninist but their fan clubs will probably burn me at the stake for saying that.

[prolcon]

I don't think I've seen a lot of Kim shirts.

[RedMaterialist]

We need to figure out what conditions create revolution in capitalist-imperialist powers.


In the 20th century, it seems to me, there have been no successful revolutions in developed capitalist countries. The only successful revolutions have been in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Angola, all semi-feudal, peasant countries, more or less.

Why has there been no revolution in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, etc? Was it just the success of the Keyensian welfare state?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Thousands of pages have been written on the subject of revolution or lack thereof in industrialized countries. I suppose it will surprise no one that I am fond of the theories that have developed around the notion of cultural hegemony. Traditional Marxian analysis sometimes focused on the bourgeois state as the instrument of class rule. Antonio Gramsci did pioneering theoretical work on both cultural hegemony as well as the role of civil society, as opposed to the state, and the power of institutions of civil society to maintain the status quo.

[Yuppie Grinder]

With Cultural Hegemony, Gramsci really just continues and improves upon what Marx did with ideology and consciousness.

[Ostrinski]

Any form of partyism can become Blanquist if unchecked by democratic methods.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I agree with both you and Lenin that a system of checks and balances must be put in place to prevent the development of unaccountable bureaucracy, and don't really buy organic centralism, but I hesitate at the use of the word "democratic".
But really that's just a semantics argument so yea.

[GoddessCleoLover]

GourmetPrez; my knowledge is a bit rusty, but I was under the impression that Gramsci's "The State and Civil Society" ploughed some new ground. I am not deliberately crediting Gramsci with concepts that were actually developed by Marx and/or Engels. Anyway, your response to my post is a valuable reminder as to the value of the writings of the "early Marx".

[Yuppie Grinder]

No, he was for sure a very original thinker. One of the most brilliant political theorists of the last century imo. I just think he finished a lot of what Marx started.

[GoddessCleoLover]

No, he was for sure a very original thinker. One of the most brilliant political theorists of the last century imo. I just think he finished a lot of what Marx started.

Thanks for your post. Some Left Communists don't give Antonio Gramsci due credit as a theorist because he was Amadeo Bordiga's successor as party secretary. I hope that Bordiga partisans come to realize that Bordiga was replaced at the behest of Zinoviev and Zinoviev is a better target for their disappointment.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Thanks for your post. Some Left Communists don't give Antonio Gramsci due credit as a theorist because he was Amadeo Bordiga's successor as party secretary. I hope that Bordiga partisans come to realize that Bordiga was replaced at the behest of Zinoviev and Zinoviev is a better target for their disappointment.

Bordiga and Gramsci are both top 5 for me. The former because of his critique of anti-partyist alternatives and the democratic principle, the latter for cultural hegemony. I don't think many of the Bordiga fans on here have read Gramsci, but I bet they'd probably like him if they did.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Gramsci seems to have reached his apex of popularity back in the 70s. IMO the Italian Communist Party did much to popularize Gramsci and its dissolution served to obscure Gramsci.

[Blake's Baby]

Generally and briefly in communist society how would these examples be averted?

Seems to me, that these problems exist because they are the unwanted consequences of capitalist exploitation that it is not profitable to eliminate. They is no money to be made by ensuring miners do not contract miners' lung, that iron oxide dust doesn't fall on towns, that mining slag doesn't spontaneously combust under the its own chemical reactions.

In a socialist society, the problem of who will make money from 'fixing' these problems will not arise. Perhaps new breathing apparatus could be developed for miners, perhaps more health-checks, increasing automation, more rotation of shifts, shorter working life down the mines, or all of these things combined, could be attempted; new filters could be developed for the chimneys of steelworks (or whatever), the workers at the works themselves - who generally live close to where they work in capitalism and are the ones who suffer most - probably know more than most about how altering work processes could reduce the pollution but perhaps there are technical solutions to this; slag could be stored in such a way as it would not spontaneously combust, or even be potentially used for power-generation. Just because these are unprofitable under capitalism, they might be perfectly possible in socialism.

Society as a whole would put resources into problems into solving these questions. Research into human health, technological progress, and environmental conservation would not cease, I'd expect that in fact that advances in technology health and conservation would increase.