Applying Socialism

[Chocobo]

I see plenty of idealogical debates here, but what I want to discuss here is a visual that I want you all to manifest in your minds.
(Those of you who think internationalism is going to happen with revolution are shot, for this thread is not for you).

Workers revolutions have happened in heavily agricultural and industrious nations before. Never before though have these revolutions taken place in "White-collar" nations. Primarilly, cities.
People who have seen large cities, such as Philadelphia, New York, London, etc: understand what I mean. Were dealing with a large population/work force of office men and women, who's contribution target really the stability of corporate markets.
There are no factories in these places, no real indsutrious, large scale means of supplying the public. There exist restaurants, pubs, grocers, corporate stores, fashion schemes, and of course, skyscrapers.

How could a revolution occur in places such as these? The many in poverty are not going to raid the streets, for they are surely outnumbered by the police. The proletariat here are rather different from the hammer and sickle in that their more along the lines of the pen and paper. Or labtop and fax machine. Whatever.

So, a few things to explore with this.
1) How would, or even could, a revolution occur in White Collar cities?
2) How would a city be of use to a proletarian revolution, outside of housing?
3) The combustion of cities, being so extravagent, seems to remove the chance of constructing large scale facilities for supplying public goods. What is to happen to the city projects that are of no use?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The cities are there for a reason... most are industrial centers.

When a city is no longer an industrial center, it tends to collapse to an extent, as was seen in Pittsburgh. There, after the flight of steel production, one of the largest population declines in U.S. history were seen. In 1950, there were 676,806 citizens, now there are 394,721.

There are 10,000+ industrial workplaces in New York City, with 233,000+ jobs. Those jobs are largely worked by Blacks, Latinos and immigrants from various countries, making them likely to be more combative.

And no, the police don't outnumber the workers in Philly, New York or London (though New York does have a huge PD now). They don't even come close.

The proletariat is still the majority in these cities, and there is still industry (though there are obviously large numbers of non-industrial proles).

[BobKKKindle$]

When a city is no longer an industrial center, it tends to collapse to an extent, as was seen in Pittsburgh. There, after the flight of steel production, one of the largest population declines in U.S. history were seen. In 1950, there were 676,806 citizens, now there are 394,721.

What do you define as 'industrial'? The dominant form of economic activity in cities and across developed countries is the provision of services; this generally does not involve the production of something that is actually useful to society and offers material benefit; rather many 'services' are simply required to sustain the capitalist system and facilitate commodity transaction - for example, finance, marketing, and managing physical monetary transactions in shops. If a revolution did occur in such a country and all foreign exchanges ceased, a developed country would not be able to sustain itself for an extended period of time; developed countries already important a high proportion of the foodstuffs and manufactured goods that are annual consumed.


1) How would, or even could, a revolution occur in White Collar cities?

For the same reasons a revolution would occur anywhere else - when people are living in extreme poverty or experience intense frustration and alienation they are more willing to challenge the system and, given sufficient hardship, radical change can occur. If the proletariat, organised as a political movement, is able to command armed force or can persuade the police to join the revolution, then they will emerge victorious. What aspect of city life makes revolution less likely?


2) How would a city be of use to a proletarian revolution, outside of housing?

Many of the 'jobs' described above would not be required under Socialism and, depending on where new infrastructure and 'real' industry is constructed, it is possible that the division between 'rural' and 'urban' may diminish over time - this was actually one of Marx's recommendations/demands in the communist Manifesto. Concentrations of people living in one place (the defining characteristic of a city) is actually very harmful for the environment, depending on what the lifestyle of a city's inhabitants.

[Chocobo]

Libertad;


When a city is no longer an industrial center, it tends to collapse to an extent, as was seen in Pittsburgh. There, after the flight of steel production, one of the largest population declines in U.S. history were seen. In 1950, there were 676,806 citizens, now there are 394,721.

There are 10,000+ industrial workplaces in New York City, with 233,000+ jobs. Those jobs are largely worked by Blacks, Latinos and immigrants from various countries, making them likely to be more combative.
Perhaps you could fill me in on what you mean by "industrial workplaces". Docks and commodity distributors? I see them at places around the luxurious cities but not really within the city.



And no, the police don't outnumber the workers in Philly, New York or London (though New York does have a huge PD now). They don't even come close.
I meant more along the lines of homeless people, and those in poverty, not really the active work force.


Bobkindles;


What do you define as 'industrial'? The dominant form of economic activity in cities and across developed countries is the provision of services; this generally does not involve the production of something that is actually useful to society and offers material benefit; rather many 'services' are simply required to sustain the capitalist system and facilitate commodity transaction - for example, finance, marketing, and managing physical monetary transactions in shops. If a revolution did occur in such a country and all foreign exchanges ceased, a developed country would not be able to sustain itself for an extended period of time; developed countries already important a high proportion of the foodstuffs and manufactured goods that are annual consumed.
Indeed, and that's what I am aiming at as well with this thread. The huge amount of material used in the construction of cities is far too valuable to waste. Though Libertad said above that there are still massive amounts of industrial jobs at these cities (Though I am still unsure of what (s)he means by "Industrial workplaces") there are still huge amounts of buildings and structures within the city that are of a work force that would, via post revolution, have no use to the proles. What of these structures?




For the same reasons a revolution would occur anywhere else - when people are living in extreme poverty or experience intense frustration and alienation they are more willing to challenge the system and, given sufficient hardship, radical change can occur. If the proletariat, organised as a political movement, is able to command armed force or can persuade the police to join the revolution, then they will emerge victorious. What aspect of city life makes revolution less likely?
Indeed, my main skepticism with revolution in the cities is coming from my own paranoia in that the maintainance of cities in times of depression (Supposing there is) would remain top notch, in that cities are no longer places where people really "live", such as suburbia, but really very large super structures for a work force that continues that of white collar jobs, or as you said, "sustain the capitalist system and facilitate commodity transaction - for example, finance, marketing, and managing physical monetary transactions in shops.". These places aren't going to turn into the torn areas during the times of say, the "Great Depression" in the US.




Many of the 'jobs' described above would not be required under Socialism and, depending on where new infrastructure and 'real' industry is constructed, it is possible that the division between 'rural' and 'urban' may diminish over time - this was actually one of Marx's recommendations/demands in the communist Manifesto. Concentrations of people living in one place (the defining characteristic of a city) is actually very harmful for the environment, depending on what the lifestyle of a city's inhabitants.
I'm not sure what you mean, or perhaps i'm just missing something but it doesn't seem you really answered the question. By diminish do you mean a general removal of what was used for capitalist means (Skyscrapers, trade centers) and the construction of work-places used for socialist means? And if so, how so? How could compact places such as Chicago be completely renovated to that of non-combustion?