Dimentio
18th July 2007, 11:47
I think one of the greatest problems with revolutionary sentiments is the romantic notion about the workers or students taking to the barricades, and the imagination of the revolution happening that way. That image is heavily one-sided, since it focus on the destruction or subversion of just one aspect of the social system.
I mean, the bourgeoisie revolutions in France and the Netherlands was a kind of exception. In other countries, the state meddled between the nobility and the bourgeoisie, and yet in others, the nobility kept political power even under the imperialist stage (Germany for example). We have one example where the nobility transformed itself into a national bourgeoisie (Japan).
It took about 400-500 years of early capitalism before the bourgeoisie reached the state of development and control of the means of production before they took over the political power. Note also that the bourgeoisie shrink during the period when it consolidated itself. During late medieval times, about one third of the residents of European cities were burghers, but when the French revolution started, there were already early capitalists.
Early burghers had about a bit better standard of life than peasants, while early industrial workers lived like animals. It was not the misery of the burghers which brought the French revolution, but an increased standard of life which gave them class conciousness.
If we look at workers today, we see that industrial workers in developed nations generally are specialists focused on programming, manufacturing and administration of the means of production. As automatisation progresses, it becomes more and more so. Nowadays, the "proletariat" is not longer generally industrial workers, but rather the white collar workers who are toiling in service jobs.
I think that it is central that we see that it is not the revolution which will bring about control of the means of production, but that it is the control of the means of production that will bring about the revolution, and the revolution would not so much be political as social. The central aspect is that we get rid of exchange accounting (the price system), and realise that the idea of the barricades today is'nt the prime way of delivering social change.
The modern worker look, behave and think something like this:
http://www.plushsentiments.com/images/dilbert.jpg
What's the point with this discussion? It is partially to stress that we need an updated analysis of the class situation in the most developed areas of the world, as well as pointing out that if someone wants to accomplish anything long-term, a long-term strategy to acquire property and utilise it for the class struggle is the best methodology.
For example this arrticle might help to elaborate on the subject (http://)
I mean, the bourgeoisie revolutions in France and the Netherlands was a kind of exception. In other countries, the state meddled between the nobility and the bourgeoisie, and yet in others, the nobility kept political power even under the imperialist stage (Germany for example). We have one example where the nobility transformed itself into a national bourgeoisie (Japan).
It took about 400-500 years of early capitalism before the bourgeoisie reached the state of development and control of the means of production before they took over the political power. Note also that the bourgeoisie shrink during the period when it consolidated itself. During late medieval times, about one third of the residents of European cities were burghers, but when the French revolution started, there were already early capitalists.
Early burghers had about a bit better standard of life than peasants, while early industrial workers lived like animals. It was not the misery of the burghers which brought the French revolution, but an increased standard of life which gave them class conciousness.
If we look at workers today, we see that industrial workers in developed nations generally are specialists focused on programming, manufacturing and administration of the means of production. As automatisation progresses, it becomes more and more so. Nowadays, the "proletariat" is not longer generally industrial workers, but rather the white collar workers who are toiling in service jobs.
I think that it is central that we see that it is not the revolution which will bring about control of the means of production, but that it is the control of the means of production that will bring about the revolution, and the revolution would not so much be political as social. The central aspect is that we get rid of exchange accounting (the price system), and realise that the idea of the barricades today is'nt the prime way of delivering social change.
The modern worker look, behave and think something like this:
http://www.plushsentiments.com/images/dilbert.jpg
What's the point with this discussion? It is partially to stress that we need an updated analysis of the class situation in the most developed areas of the world, as well as pointing out that if someone wants to accomplish anything long-term, a long-term strategy to acquire property and utilise it for the class struggle is the best methodology.
For example this arrticle might help to elaborate on the subject (http://)