Does "the left" need to reconnect with its millenarian heritage?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It seems to me that, at the various moments of the left's greatest advance - the 1850s, 1917-1922(ish), the 60s - great numbers of people were animated by the sincere belief in the imminence of "Revolution".
At our current juncture, no such hopeful discourse exists. It is essentially the standard operating procedure for left groups to base their theory and practice on the very impossibility of revolution.
I think there are multiple 'lineages" of this: Stalin's pejorative dismissal of "full communism", the hegemony of social democracy (and, I suppose, "Eurocommunism" if there's a distinction to be drawn) in Western workers' movements, the anarchist turn toward an obsessive micropolitics, the communist left's overwhelming pessimism, and probably others.

So, is there a way to reinvigorate the fervor that accompanies a sense of revolutionary possibility? Without the impulse that the revolutionary possibility serves as ethical "green light" for any and all acts ostensibly in its service?

Of revolution's imminence? Without slipping into cartoonish roleplaying?

Of revolution's immanence? Without abandoning a revolutionary strategy?

[Rafiq]

So, is there a way to reinvigorate the fervor that accompanies a sense of revolutionary possibility? Without the impulse that the revolutionary possibility serves as ethical "green light" for any and all acts ostensibly in its service?


What if great signs of revolutionary imminence and all the radical anxiety which follows it - actually has its grounding in the real eventful imminence of a revolution? We cannot reinvigorate such a fervor insofar as its concrete existence does not exist. To conceive the very possibility of a revolution requires the linguistic, and social pre-requisites to revolution to have been realized, and they haven't yet. This is solely owed not to the weakening of the prospect of revolution in the 21st century, but the failure of the Left to approximate itself towards the new conditions of capitalism which define it. The rise of neoliberalism, and the very real revolution in capitalism that followed the second world war had utterly and completely dislocated the coordinates of struggle. It is as though we find ourselves in the same position the Young Hegelians did during the onset of the industrial revolution. That at moments the Left had to conform itself to the non-imminence of revolution was not grounded in a theoretical error but the reality of (their) according situations.

The task today remains the only task of the Left in moments of crises: To approximate the social antagonisms unique to our present epoch politically in such a way that relates to the very foundations of life for ordinary people. If such a political basis can be built (And it real - eventful, precisely because it would be successful in recognizing real antagonisms that exist independently of us) than through the course of real struggle even for what 'we' might consider insignificant in the long term, revolution would be inevitable. The revolution will not come a day before the working people are not invested in it, that they find it necessary. And - as such, an ethical green light for all acts does inevitably upon up through revolution, but the point is that the very nature of such acts (to quote Frunze) should correspond with the highest ideals of the revolution. The ethical green light for mass terror was opened up both in France and Russia, but the guillotine and the bullet to the neck were characteristic of the 'ends', that is to say, the ends justifies the means but at the same time the ends must define the means. The ethical green light is opened, but within this very opening irrevocably lies a new order of permitted violence, the very nature of our horrors must be distinct from the enemy. How could, for example, Communists engage in rape as a form of mass terror? The power which this is in service of, trying to protect is sexual slavery and so on.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think the OP is confusing cause and consequence here.

In 1917, revolutionary fervour accompanied the revolution because of actions taken over the previous 15-20 years (as noted by Luxemburg in 'The Mass Strike') that represented an increase in resistance activities by Russian workers.

In the 1960s similarly, resistance in the US by the Black Panthers and the student movements of the late 1960s led to a belief that change could happen imminently, as opposed to the belief itself leading to actions.

It has been noted that the most developed, sensical and long-standing theories are forged in concrete actions, as any theory needs to be able to draw upon practicable evidence if it is to be anything other than a pipe-dream in somebody's mind.

I believe that any theory, or belief, comes from actions, rather than the other way round, initially at least.

[John Nada]

"We" shouldn't kid ourselves. In the main, the modern left is on the defensive. Often only just reemerging. It goes in zigzags.

At the time of those objectively revolutionary situations, it wasn't know to them that they wouldn't go down like the Paris Commune or the annihilation of Indonesian Communists. They were human, just like now. Yet at the same time, "full communism" wasn't just something put off 200 years into the future. A better world was thought possible now, not "Oh we're fucked, this is the next best thing". Theory and practice was a reciprocal relation.

If analyzed in dept, many seemingly unrelated events built up to another. What appears to have been sudden event was but the accumulation of many events.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Well, at this point the Left has to work on developing a bolder, more class-conscious working class. Without some kind of strong organization on the ground among workers I am not sure how the Left can take advantage of revolutionary situations. The fact that reactionaries seem to be taking advantage of revolutionary opportunities in places such as the Middle East is disheartening and shows why the lack of strong organization is problematic.

EDIT: So I don't know if developing a millenarian strategy is the right thing to do now. People may become disheartened when a revolution fails to occur, which may lead to disillusionment and cynicism as happened after the failure of the 1960s counter-culture movements. Better to build up strength and work on making workers bolder and more self-confident.

[John Nada]

So I don't know if developing a millenarian strategy is the right thing to do now. People may become disheartened when a revolution fails to occur, which may lead to disillusionment and cynicism as happened after the failure of the 1960s counter-culture movements. Better to build up strength and work on making workers bolder and more self-confident.In the 60's it was thought that, yes, this could be the end of the world. Something that never happened before in history occurred. Nuclear weapons advanced greatly from the 40's. Humans had the technology to completely destroy the entire plant. A nuclear holocaust was thought by some to be imminent. This mixed with more widespread use of television and record players, and the many wars of national liberation.

[thebishop]

It's up to us to put together a revolutionary platform and strategy that can reinvigorate that fervor.

[Kronsteen]

It's certainly true that there's something romantic about fighting the good fight - and decidedly unromantic about organising meetings, phoning around to get people to demos, and standing on street corners completely failing to sell the party newspaper.

There's a reason why all the parties on the far left (and indeed far right) have such high turnover rates. They make big romantic promises of changing the world, then dive into the tedium of just keeping the party going. Churches have the same problem.

Those who manage to retain their passionate romantic attachment to the cause...well, it's no news that they're often also a little bit crazy. The kind of crazy that can destroy party branches.

So I think to be a successful comrade, you need to do what professional writers do. Compartmentalise your passion and delicate yearnings for organised events, and your hard-nosed, pragmatic and thick-skinned feelings for the drudgery and setbacks.

[The Modern Prometheus]

I think many on the left became very disillusioned with it all as many of the old Communist parties as well as Anarchist movements fell completely out of touch with the workers and the academic aspect of the revolutionary left became disconnected from the masses of the working class. This has caused many people to vote for reform leftists such as slightly left of center Liberals and Social-Democrats instead of joining active revolutionary movements simply as it's better then Conservatism.

If the Revolutionary left could once again connect with the working class i think great things could come of it. At no time in the past has conditions for a Communist society existed more favorably especially in the west then it has now. In order for wealth to be distributed equally among the people there has to actually be wealth to be redistributed and right now that would be far less of a problem then say in early 20th century Russia. Also with the collapse of the middle class due to the recession there is a bigger income gap between the Bourgeois and the working class now then perhaps anytime since WW2 thus more and more people are disenfranchised with their lot in life. In America with cops not only killing minorities but basically treating all working class people with open contempt it has led to more civil unrest then any period since the civil rights era. Socialist groups could also play a part here by helping the working class people affected by police brutality. Hopefully we have learned from the 60's that pacifism is absolutely useless and that the Utopia type Socialism envisioned in that era was totally unrealistic.

You would also have a hard time arguing that Capitalism has not run it's course and outlived it's usefulness. Granted Feudalism outlived it's usefulness many years before it was crushed by the emerging Capitalist Bourgeois class. We need to unite to crush the Capitalists in the same way Feudalism was dealt it's death blow by the Liberal Bourgeois of their era.

The only thing we are really lacking in is a Revolutionary Socialist movement that has it's roots in the working class. A revolutionary movement with no working class members on the ground is useless. Meanwhile as was seen at OWS fragmented movements with no revolutionary theory behind them are useless as well. A movement needs theory behind it and especially common goals to achieve.

[RedSonRising]

Interesting discussion. I think I agree with those who say that the cause and effect has been switched around in this framing. But I think there are two separate questions at play. That a feeling of imminent revolution is grounded in the social conditions surrounding the working class, and that conditions currently don't produce that romantic mobilizing sensation makes sense. But it is concerning to me how leftist activists themselves simply go along with the notion of the futility of revolution. It seems like a combination of the new paradigm of identity politics & privilege theory, following the crushing defeat of the New Left, and the rise of the non-profit industrial complex in the wake of neoliberalism has conditioned even the most stubbornly Marxist and anti-capitalist into believing that it's just all out of are hands. We're in a pre-pre-pre-revolutionary situation, oh well. We won't see socialism in our lifetime, oh well. The best we can do is just help people suffering the most and create some breathing room by pushing back under the heel of the capitalist state.

And this is not to suggest that all leftists are useless or don't genuinely yearn for revolutionary change. Many put themselves on the line trying to mobilize and improve the conditions of working people around the world. But somewhere along the way, the left today became allergic to the thought of political power. So many leftist political parties are dominated by sectarian ideologues with no know-how with regards to how to engage the broader working class populace, while the rest are left to organize outside of the framework of seizing political power. I understand the skepticism of electoral parties and united fronts and all that, but there is a stark need for a coordinated attempt at political power, or at least a more unified effort at consolidating and mobilizing a united working class. Because we are losing. Despite the many dedicated and passionate people out there demonstrating and organizing and doing progressive legal work, we are losing. And the necessary change starts with those already dedicated to transforming society and empowering the working class. Just as we can't underestimate the dire conditions the modern left finds itself in, we also can't underestimate the very real power the working class always holds over the status quo as the means by which all goods and services are produced.

Sorry for the rant but I feel a lot of frustration at the defeatism and subconscious passive complicity present in so many otherwise intelligent and dedicated leftists. The working class must liberate themselves, but that won't happen if every conscious working class person believes the lie that there is nothing we can do about the beast that is capitalism. If we always think this way and hope for some magical and convenient "change in social conditions" to give the masses a kick of red enthusiasm, we will never win.

[Comrade Jacob]

We need to stop denouncing past revolutions and be inspired by them to build more theoretically advance ones.

[CyM]

TGDU, you know full well not everyone has lost that red thread. Some people have written world perspectives where that runs vibrant throughout the analysis of the entire world situation, and I think the shocking events we are seeing across the world at the moment confirm it.