New Difficulties in Overthrowing the Ruling Class

[Althusser]

I'm thinking about the increased difficulty of socialist revolution in the modern world due to the amount of technology at the disposal of the ruling class. Imagine people start organizing and the bourgeoisie's status as the ruling class is threatened. The playing field isn't as leveled as it used to be. Sure, one can argue that the henchmen of the bourgeoisie always had better weapons and better equipment, but now they have satellites that can zoom in on a space as small as six inches on earth, drones, etc. (You've seen the accuracy of some of these missiles)

Are there any peices of literature about the subject anyone can recommend? Also please share your thoughts on this, and what the plan of action would have to be come the day capitalism inevitably reacts to social unrest with a seemingly unbeatable fascist dictatorship? Been bugging my ass for a while.:confused:

[Os Cangaceiros]

That's why open revolt is more effective than clandestine action in today's world. Although I don't think that clandestine action was ever particularly effective, in most cases. Plus the main thrust of a revolutionary movement takes place predominantly on a societal level, not a military one, etc etc blah blah blah

All the survelliance in the UK was useless against the mobs in the street during the August 2011 riots, for example.

With that being said, ultimately I feel that all the high-tech stuff being developed isn't so much a threat when we're talking about "the state vs the masses" (when cities are burning the state is going to have to resort to more drastic measures than drones and such), it's more a threat in regards to "the state vs the communist minority". It's a problem in the sense that leaders of movements can be dealt with easier than perhaps they could've in the past. The left thus far has not come up with an adequate response to this problem either, IMO.

[teflon_john]

It wasn't enough to stop the resistance in Iraq or Afghanistan. They ain't so tough.

[Neoprime]

I'm thinking about the increased difficulty of socialist revolution in the modern world due to the amount of technology at the disposal of the ruling class. Imagine people start organizing and the bourgeoisie's status as the ruling class is threatened. The playing field isn't as leveled as it used to be. Sure, one can argue that the henchmen of the bourgeoisie always had better weapons and better equipment, but now they have satellites that can zoom in on a space as small as six inches on earth, drones, etc. (You've seen the accuracy of some of these missiles)

Are there any peices of literature about the subject anyone can recommend? Also please share your thoughts on this, and what the plan of action would have to be come the day capitalism inevitably reacts to social unrest with a seemingly unbeatable fascist dictatorship? Been bugging my ass for a while.:confused:

1. One Socialist should take over or take some the tech themselves.

2. Playing field isn't even, doesn't mean we can't create an even for us.

3. If henchmen have good guns, why not put your men/women in place of some of those henchmen makes assassination pretty easy, if they have better stuff steal it, create it, or again put your people in place for it.

4. Satellites have weaknesses that can be exploited(delays, cost, hacking, etc...)

5. Lit that you can use but you have to update youself are Sun Tzu "Art of War", Che "Guerrilla Warfare", update by applying tech, and modern tactics to them.

6. One tactic I think any Rev should use is to work like a Guardian Vanguard that exist but wait for the right amount of power and when shit hits the fan(collapse of captialism) they have protocols and contingency plans for the situation of Revolution. If not wait then organazie the workers to revolt in a strategic fashion that catches the elite off guard enough to overwhelm them and doesn't allow them to recover at all.

7. NOTHING IS UNBEATBLE, it is a time when all most thing must end.

[den röde skogshuggaren]

I think the biggest issue a revolutionary power today would face is racism. Not just from the ruling class but from the revolutionaries as well.

[Futility Personified]

All the survelliance in the UK was useless against the mobs in the street during the August 2011 riots, for example.



I dunno, while that was good in that it showed the states inability to effectively mobilize against mass action (imagine if the riots were actively political! shit would've been done!) it was effective in targeting people afterwards. The draconian sentences they passed down and the large number of people they caught after trawling CCTV for ages shows that when it comes to mass protest their technology can't stop it but it can make it very, very unpleasant afterwards. Surveillance is going to be a very effective deterrent until things get completely intolerable. When people decide to take action on a large scale though it won't matter shit. They can't arrest everyone.

[Art Vandelay]

When the masses are in the streets, they won't be able to just fly by with a drone and mass murder them; then who will run the economy? The proletariat's power doesn't come from 'the barrel of a gun' but from their collective relationship to the means of production.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I think most of us often forget that the new technology is not just available to the state.
The new technology also helps us with communication, RevLeft in itself is an example to this.

[Philosopher Jay]

You have to understand the "Frankenstein effect" of technology. It always has unintended consequences. A technology may be developed to help a class, but situations change constantly and other classes may use that technology for very different purposes.

Think of it this way. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, he first published Bibles because he wanted to show that it was a blessed instrument that could lessen the need for Church copyists/manpower and help the Catholic Church gain more souls. He could not imagine that within 75 years his invention would be used to blow up the Church and would help in the Protestant Reformation/Revolution.

Technology means better control over a process, but better control over a process can lead to less control over other processes. Factories in the late 18th and early 19th century meant greater production and greater profits, but it also led to vile conditions in cities for the masses that destroyed the social controls within cities of the 18th Century. This led to increased danger for the bourgeoisie from impoverished lower classes. New Police, court and prison systems had to be developed to deal with it.

It was Marx who understood best that technology was not preventing the socialist revolution, but was creating the necessary conditions for it.

[Left Voice]

We can example the usage of information technology and social media to see how technology can be a double-edged sword than can both help and hinder social movements.

Take the example of the suppression of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Social media allows us to access first-hand accounts of events on the ground, and enables interested groups to rally together and build support against the suppression. At the same time, we see the Israeli authorities utilising the media and the ease of transmission of information to distort and cover this up. The loudest voice is the one that gets heard, and thus western coverage of the crisis is the 'truth' that gets heard by the people. The voice of the Palestinians is only heard by people who actively seek it.

And this highlights a problem that the left will face - I see little evidence that the left is equipped to utilise technology and spread the truth in the face of the overwhelming narrative that will surely be spread by the rightist media. Similarly, we cannot assume that any revolution will be socialist in nature - many of the riots are apolitical, and we can examine a shocking rise in the popularity of reactionary groups, from the extremes such as the fascist Golden Dawn in Greece, to the borderline-racist groups such as UKIP in the UK. The left has a duty to demonstrate its relevance to the working class, utilising technology to counter to tide towards the right by demonstrating that the left is active and important in today's social issues.

The challenge that the left faces with technology is how to effectively utilise it in the face to strengthening reactionary groups.

[subcp]

I think a combination of the assemblies in Greece, the rioting in Bangladesh and the politicized strikes in Egypt is most likely what it'll look like. In the case of Egypt, we witnessed a state power 'whither away'- many militaries will not turn tanks and small arms against 'fellow citizens' in certain circumstances. A right-wing group in the US ('Promise Keepers' or whatever) all signed on saying they will not act against American citizens if ordered to do so by the Federal government. Without its monopoly on legitimate violence, the state quickly loses that legitimacy, and dissolves under the weight if it is being pummeled by growing unrest. The textile workers are credited with being the 'cradle of the revolution'; they've been engaging in mass strike tactics for years. The problem is that it didn't become a generalized struggle of the same magnitude all over the world, so a new state apparatus immediately took over, largely via the still extant military.

I think too much credit is given to the bourgeoisie as being Machiavellian.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

While I basically think 9mm hit the nail on the head in terms of the "big picture", and PJ is right about unintended consequences, I think it's worth considering a specific set of unintended consequences: the mass (post)industrial economy is essentially undermining its material basis. The maintenance of existing production requires ever increasing inputs for ever diminishing returns, not only in terms of profits, but in terms of energy-in/energy-out. As easily exploitable sources of petroleum, for example, give way to the need to rely on costly and resource intensive bitumin, the industrial agricultural model which relies on petroleum inputs becomes increasingly unfeasible. As a consequence, food prices rise, social unrest increases, and keeping order - another fuel intensive endeavour - becomes increasingly difficult. The ability of the mass (post)industrial capitalist economy to provide "guns and butter" (to borrow from vulgar macroeconomics) is thus constantly approaching its practical limit. This is only one example among many - we could easily pick tantalum or hardwood - the point remains that industrial capitalism, as a basic fact of its functioning, moves toward undermining its landbase. Every new piece of technology deemed necessary for keeping capitalism going serves to accelerate this process (even most of those hailed as "green").
Ultimately, the technological conflict won't come down to drones vs bricks, but corn vs permaculture.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he mass (post)industrial economy is essentially undermining its material basis.




[T]he industrial agricultural model which relies on petroleum inputs becomes increasingly unfeasible. As a consequence, food prices rise, social unrest increases, and keeping order - another fuel intensive endeavour - becomes increasingly difficult.




Ultimately, the technological conflict won't come down to drones vs bricks, but corn vs permaculture.


I appreciate the partisanship here, but I think it may be too easy to underestimate the resiliency of the system to adapt, well before its internal breaking point.

If I'm correct in this then the system *won't* abandon the industrial process itself just because of some hiccups concerning conventional energy supplies. It would reach the point of having to let in more-alternative options in order to retain social order and its own power base.

So, to formalize, we should be careful in what we ascribe as belonging to the 'base' and what belongs to the 'superstructure' -- the existing status quo 'superstructure' would have to shift long before it would allow its 'base' to fracture.