3rd Circle?

[Lamanov]

If we could make a global periodization of 20th century class struggle history, we would make out two "historical circles". Both of these interconnected (internally) and carry basically same characteristics.

The first one, we could say, begins with the February revolution in 1917 and ends with the crushing of POUM and CNT in 1937.

The second, I believe, begins with the 1953 East Berlin workers' uprising and ends with the crushing of Prague Spring at the end of 1968.

In both of these "historical circles" the working class came out with massive offensive actions, which, outside these circles, did not exist. Of course, the Solidarnosc movement in Poland was guided and the workers were constantly in defensive throughout the 80's and 90's.

But, could it be that with this year, 2006, with the three million massive Anti-CPE movement in France, and, let's say, mass strikes in Bangladesh, third circle of mass workers' struggles had began?

[BreadBros]

Don't forget the huge (millions) May Day immigrant marches/strikes this year in the US.

[bolshevik butcher]

I certainly think that the workers movement is emerging again after the dark period following the collapse of stalinism and the advances of the ruling class in the form of US imperialism and free trade that was the early and mid 90's. The reemergence started in the west with the seattle riots in '98 and the massive anti-war movements in 2002. In Latin America since Chavez' election in 1998, and especially since the attempted coup that was thwarted by the Venezuealn working class in 2002 the socialist movement is going from strength to strength.

[Lamanov]

I don't think that Chavez election could be classified as proletariat turning ofensive. If we look at 21st century class war from symply anti-neo-liberal standpoint, then we will get nowhere. But, OK, it may be put into the new recompositioning.

I'd like to correct myself. It seems that second circle ends with [not '68, but] 1973 movement in Italy, which leaves with interesting conclusion: both circles lasted for 20 years. Of course, that is just a coincidence.

[chimx]

a) i'm opposed to periodization

b) this is a very eurocentric "global periodization", as it ignores china in the 1940s and 1950s, japan in the 1960s, and south korea in the 1980s, to name a few.

[Lamanov]

Chimx: It is not eurocentric. 1940's China is ignored for obvious reasons: it was a peasant national-liberation movement under militant leadership. Japan, obviously, is included into the second circle, although, I admit I know nothing of it.

Besides, every possible periodization makes no sense in global perspective. ;) This one is just like all others, it's not totally acurate, but it hits the spot.

[chimx]

alright, well south korea in the 1980s was the most significant out of all of the exceptions i listed.

[Lamanov]

What happened there?

[chimx]

the minjung movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minjung) toppled a military dictatorship.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 01:51 pm
a) i'm opposed to periodization

b) this is a very eurocentric "global periodization", as it ignores china in the 1940s and 1950s, japan in the 1960s, and south korea in the 1980s, to name a few.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the movement in Japan was primarily made of students who split from the stalinist communist party of Japan.

[bolshevik butcher]

Well the other thing it ignores is the working class militancy in britain in the run up to the miners strike in 1984, and the movements in Laitn America, in El Salvador and Nicaragua for instance.

[chimx]

yeah, japan was primarily students.

[Leo]

China is ignored for obvious reasons: it was a peasant national-liberation movement under militant leadership.

Mao and his gang were actually just militant nationalist leaders and they came out exactly from the defeat of the actual workers movement in China. ICC had a good text on Maoism:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/094_china_part3.html

[Janus]

and they came out exactly from the defeat of the actual workers movement in China
I'm guessing that movement would be in the 1st circle of this paradigm.


But, could it be that with this year, 2006, with the three million massive Anti-CPE movement in France, and, let's say, mass strikes in Bangladesh, third circle of mass workers' struggles had began?
I'm not sure if specific dates would fit in very well but rather a more general timeline?

Of course, 2006 also includes the Oaxaca strike.

[Leo]

Personally, I really am interested in examining class struggles, but we need to get the question of crisis of capitalism involved if we actually want to understand the nature of class struggles. Just saying that there were "circles" according to the time line of class struggles don't mean much by themselves.

[Lamanov]

So, basicly, the Minjung movement was a front type movement, with only partial proletarian charachter, which only goal was to throw down militarism?

And, the student movement in Japan was an inter-party split?

* * *

Of course, there's the situation in Mexico right now.

If "feels" as such a third wave is actually beginning.

[Alf]

Or, alternatively:

1917-27, international revolutionary wave, culminating in historical defeat of working class and deepest counter-revolution in history (Nazism, Stalinism World War Two...). The wave had already peaked by 1920 although there were 'last gasps' in Britain and China. Spanish struggles also echoed the revolutionary wave but firmly inside period of counter-revolution. Similarly with huge workers struggles in eastern bloc (53, 56), although in a sense they pointed both ways

1968-1989: end of the counter revolution and a series of waves of class struggles in all countries, followed by a deep reflux during the 90s. Highest points May 68 in France, Poland 1980.

2003-2006: opening up of a new period, dynamic towards the mass strike, indicated by anti-CPE movement as DJ-TC says....

[chimx]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 09, 2006 01:32 pm
So, basicly, the Minjung movement was a front type movement, with only partial proletarian charachter, which only goal was to throw down militarism?

maybe. it had a strong labor/student advocacy, but it also took on quasi-religious undertones at times and worked hand-in-hand with Christian liberation theology which was popular. It definitely had a quasi-Marxist perspective, but I would say that the capitalists that took charge of the country by the 1990s co-opted Minjung more so than acting as an extension of it. Honestly I need to read more on Minjung throughout the 1980s



also: apparently nobody thinks that Argentina in 2001 was that cool apparently