Pogue
1st January 2008, 15:04
For all the talk of world revolution, the qouting of Marx, Lenin, Mao, pray even Stalin, the theory discussed, the people and groups criticised, it strikes many as quite apparent the failings of the left in the 20th/21st century. While there have been victories of a type at home and abroad, these seem minor in comparison to the overall goal, and our current situation. At the start of the 20th century it could be said that class conciousness, awareness and motivation were at their peak. This progressed right up until about the 80's, where it declined rapdily to our state today, where the majority of people couldn't give two shits what Lenin's theory of revolution or what not was. There are many theories about this. There are the ones of indoctrination by capitalism to the people leading to mass acceptance of our state. Another is that the people simply don't want radical change. Some have said that extremism of any kind does not work and ultimately will lead to fail. They would argue the fall of the 'Communism' of the 20th century was evidence to this. One could also say our current state is also clear evidence to this. The majority of people in the UK will vote for Labour, Lib Dems, or Conservative. A rung below and you have the BNP, Respect, The Green Party.
We could, in our all-consuming self assured arogance say that we, as leftists, are enlightened, whereas the masses are not, but increasingly I am not sure of this. These days, in England, the state of living and education are much higher than they have been in the past. This has led to the increased abundance of the educated middle classes. Alot of my friends and relatives are educated people who understand what Anarchy, Communism and Socialism are, they just don't think its neccesary, acheivable, realistic. Or, more to the point, they don't believe this of the radical forms of these ideas. Although some people would remain, whether by their own fault or capitalism's, ignorant of what a different world there is, many are not ignorant, just objective. I do not know any repressive capitalists personally, the people I refer to are teachers, nurses, police officers, et cetera. Many of them are also 'reformist socialists' or 'social democrats'. Left leaning, but not calling for revolution. I have noted, obviously, on the left, a certain distaste to this position. But lets look at the facts. A comrade on the board quouted Aneurin Bevan's speech in another thread, about the Suez crisis, and said that Mr Bevan was not a revolutionary by Guevera's standards. Yet Mr. Bevan played a large role in bringing about the beautiful institution that is the British NHS. Yes, he was not a revolutionary, but the NHS, in the different sense of the word, was a very revolutionary, socialist institution, which greatly affected the lives of many. It is debatable whether such a profound change has been brough about elsewhere! One can refer to the heroic efforts of Comrade Che, Castro, and all our old friends from days passed in Russia, but I am sure many scholars and general observers would conclude such systems were no where near perfect. One could argue they were evil, oppressive, anti-working class, un-democratic, etc.
Revolution is a wonderful idea, and I personally desire for a (libertarian, anarcho-) communist state of things at some point. But living in the 21st century and coming from the background I do, I see the need for realism. People such as Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone, Mr Bevan, not revolutionaries, 'social democracts' have brought about the changes which affect the everyday lives of the working class. This could lead one to think, is reformism, social democracy, oppisition to outwardly uncomprimising far left wing politics lazy, blind, capitalist-enforced patheticness, incorrectness, or is it realism? I could certainly make the point that Mr Livingstone has changed the lives of and helped more people than most of the comrades on this board. This is no slant. I am not insulting, or generalising, doubtless many comrades help their local communities, do work which benefits people. But the progress of social democraty through Parliament, and democratic means, has led to more change recently, at least in the United Kingdom, than revolutionary ideas have. So why scoff at this? Who does the working class have more respect for, the anarchist in black who throws a brick at the police, or the politican who fights through parliament to pass a bill which directly benefits the lives of the people, as local MP's would do? Not to say that 'direct action' isn't beneficial, I wholeheartedly support peaceful (although perhaps slightly illegal) protest with a good message to put out to the world. But this can work alongside working within the current systems. Che himself said revolution is only justified when the state uses illegal methods to prevent peaceful change. On a large scale, in the UK, this has not happened yet. If we wanted to vote Communist Party of Great Britain (if we could find it amongst the legions of clones it has spawned over the years), or any other more radical party striving to bring about mass change, we could. But we don't. Is this not a clear message in itself? People like demoracy, reform, peaceful change which can be controlled and measured.
A question I put to comrades is that - what is the future for this movement? Why is this reformist social democracy so bad when it has clear victories, in comparsion too (and again I stress I am referring soely to the United Kingdom) to the complete lack of real change brought about by revolutionary politics?
--------------------------------------Edit------------------------------------------------------
A point to add - could the efforts of public sector workers, nurses, police officers, fireman, etc, who'd work everday to prevent crime, save lifes, etc, be said to dwarf the efforts of 'revolutionaries'?
We could, in our all-consuming self assured arogance say that we, as leftists, are enlightened, whereas the masses are not, but increasingly I am not sure of this. These days, in England, the state of living and education are much higher than they have been in the past. This has led to the increased abundance of the educated middle classes. Alot of my friends and relatives are educated people who understand what Anarchy, Communism and Socialism are, they just don't think its neccesary, acheivable, realistic. Or, more to the point, they don't believe this of the radical forms of these ideas. Although some people would remain, whether by their own fault or capitalism's, ignorant of what a different world there is, many are not ignorant, just objective. I do not know any repressive capitalists personally, the people I refer to are teachers, nurses, police officers, et cetera. Many of them are also 'reformist socialists' or 'social democrats'. Left leaning, but not calling for revolution. I have noted, obviously, on the left, a certain distaste to this position. But lets look at the facts. A comrade on the board quouted Aneurin Bevan's speech in another thread, about the Suez crisis, and said that Mr Bevan was not a revolutionary by Guevera's standards. Yet Mr. Bevan played a large role in bringing about the beautiful institution that is the British NHS. Yes, he was not a revolutionary, but the NHS, in the different sense of the word, was a very revolutionary, socialist institution, which greatly affected the lives of many. It is debatable whether such a profound change has been brough about elsewhere! One can refer to the heroic efforts of Comrade Che, Castro, and all our old friends from days passed in Russia, but I am sure many scholars and general observers would conclude such systems were no where near perfect. One could argue they were evil, oppressive, anti-working class, un-democratic, etc.
Revolution is a wonderful idea, and I personally desire for a (libertarian, anarcho-) communist state of things at some point. But living in the 21st century and coming from the background I do, I see the need for realism. People such as Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone, Mr Bevan, not revolutionaries, 'social democracts' have brought about the changes which affect the everyday lives of the working class. This could lead one to think, is reformism, social democracy, oppisition to outwardly uncomprimising far left wing politics lazy, blind, capitalist-enforced patheticness, incorrectness, or is it realism? I could certainly make the point that Mr Livingstone has changed the lives of and helped more people than most of the comrades on this board. This is no slant. I am not insulting, or generalising, doubtless many comrades help their local communities, do work which benefits people. But the progress of social democraty through Parliament, and democratic means, has led to more change recently, at least in the United Kingdom, than revolutionary ideas have. So why scoff at this? Who does the working class have more respect for, the anarchist in black who throws a brick at the police, or the politican who fights through parliament to pass a bill which directly benefits the lives of the people, as local MP's would do? Not to say that 'direct action' isn't beneficial, I wholeheartedly support peaceful (although perhaps slightly illegal) protest with a good message to put out to the world. But this can work alongside working within the current systems. Che himself said revolution is only justified when the state uses illegal methods to prevent peaceful change. On a large scale, in the UK, this has not happened yet. If we wanted to vote Communist Party of Great Britain (if we could find it amongst the legions of clones it has spawned over the years), or any other more radical party striving to bring about mass change, we could. But we don't. Is this not a clear message in itself? People like demoracy, reform, peaceful change which can be controlled and measured.
A question I put to comrades is that - what is the future for this movement? Why is this reformist social democracy so bad when it has clear victories, in comparsion too (and again I stress I am referring soely to the United Kingdom) to the complete lack of real change brought about by revolutionary politics?
--------------------------------------Edit------------------------------------------------------
A point to add - could the efforts of public sector workers, nurses, police officers, fireman, etc, who'd work everday to prevent crime, save lifes, etc, be said to dwarf the efforts of 'revolutionaries'?