Revolution. What does it mean to you?

[Pawn Power]

http://increvablesanarchistes.org/album_photo/phot1968/68dess_10wolinsky.jpghttp://increvablesanarchistes.org/album_photo/phot1968/68dess_2wolinsky.jpg

Frame 1
Delegate: Comrades, it seems that you have stopped work.
Workers: Yea, Yea, Yea

Frame 2
Delegate: If you've gone on strike it means that you want to make some demands. I'm your delegate and you should hide nothing from me!

Frame 3
Delegate: Its your wages right comrades? You want a raise, right? That's what it is, right?

Frame 4
Delegate: Or else it's job security? Or vacation? I'll have to get the government and owners to face their responsibilities. Speak to your delegate who loves you. Go ahead speak.

Frame 5
Delegate: YOU DUMB BASTARDS! Are you going to tell me why you are on strike? YES OR SHIT?
Workers: We want REVOLUTION.

Frame 6
Delegate: Revolution! Your CRAZY! The government and the owners would never allow it.

***********************************************
Simply looking at the tag cloud at the bottom of the board you notice that "revolution" is one the most used words in our discussions. The forum itself is called Revolutionary Left and many of us deem ourselves revolutionaries. We want "revolution," but do we know what that is?

What “revolution” are you fighting for? Is it a physical upheaval? Is it a mass realization of exploitation? It is it occupied workplaces and schools? Change in government? Is it tangible or conceptual? What are the actual processes of “revolution”? What does it look like?

One of the major criticisms of radical-leftism are that its politics are idealist and unrealistic or that there are no concrete objectives, just a vague aspiration for “revolution.” I think this critique often comes out of an unclear definition of revolution.

So, what is revolution?

[GPDP]

In the general sense: A complete transformation of society guided by a vision and alternative institutions for change.

[revolution inaction]

Revolution means workers take over the means of production, form councils/syndicates, which federate to co-ordinate there activities and begin to run society.
To defend this we will need to abolish institutions like the government and spread the revolution to the areas where it has not yet occurred.
To do this we will need to form militias to defend against military attacks (obviously defence includes attacking first).
We will also need to encourage people to carry out the revolution in areas which are still under capitalist control, and give them what ever assistance we can so that the revolution encompasses the whole world.

To get to the point where this is possible will require years of preparation, with revolutionaries promoting revolutionary ideas amongst the workers, and the workers becoming revolutionary and learning how to self organise and run society through there experience of class struggle, and self managed organisations (like syndicalist unions or workers councils).

[Vendetta]

Giving the workers the means of production.

Everything else comes later, in my opinion.

[Red_Dialectics]

Abolition of all existing social conditions!

[Pawn Power]

In the general sense: A complete transformation of society guided by a vision and alternative institutions for change.


Giving the workers the means of production.


Abolition of all existing social conditions!

These are precisely the vague answers I was not looking for.

I did not ask what are synonyms the of revolution- "A complete transformation of society," "Abolition of all existing social conditions," etc.

The question is what does revolution look like. Saying the above does not actually show that we know what revolution is. How are the processes in a "complete transformation of society"? Who is "giving the workers the means of production"? How does the "abolition of all existing social conditions" come about and what is included in this category of "social conditions" ?

[gla22]

workers seizing the means of production.

[trivas7]

The question is what does revolution look like. Saying the above does not actually show that we know what revolution is. How are the processes in a "complete transformation of society"? Who is "giving the workers the means of production"? How does the "abolition of all existing social conditions" come about and what is included in this category of "social conditions" ?
The revolution doesn't "look like" anything. It's a process of social transformation, not a single historical event or even a single interpretation of events. Revolution culminates in the successful accomplishment of the next stage of human evolution. That's as specific as we can be.

[mikelepore]

What I think the revolution will "look like" in the U.S. ... perhaps sometime in the 22nd century ... socialists have been elected to the congress and the state legislatures ... they pass a constitutional amendment that says, "On April 20 [or some date], throughout the nation, at 1:00 PM eastern time, previous ownership and control of all industries and services is made null and void, and that ownership and control is transfered to [the name of a large workers' organization that hasn't been formed as of the year 2008]."

[Yehuda Stern]

PawnPower, I know how you feel. In our ideas it's easy for most Marxists to get away with using high sounding phrases like that, as if they're off the hook once they saying 'take over the means of production.'

Revolution in the Marxist sense is more than just workers taking over factories. That can happen under capitalism too (indeed, it has been happening all over Latin America for years now, and no one would argue that any state in there is socialist). Revolution, concretely, means first and foremost that the masses of people have become involved in politics. What does this mean? We all discuss politics with people we know, argue about this and that, but most people do not believe that they are fit to rule, to make decisions. They leave it to the MPs and other 'professional' (i.e. bourgeois) politicians to rule society, and at best criticize them. A revolution can be said to take place when these 'common people' become aware of their ability to influence politics, to rule even. That is why dual power is so important for Marxists - it shows that the masses, on some level, feel that they can and must become politically involved.

In a deeper sense, a revolution means that one class overthrows another - the old state is crushed, and not only is it crushed, but a party representing that new class comes to power (i.e. not a Stalinist or nationalist party but a Marxist party). A successful revolution means that a new state has been built which serves the interests of the new class.

I hope that's concerete enough.

[gilhyle]

To my mind a revolution is a long drawn out process which begins with

1. two parrallel processes withi Capitalism:

a) the socialization of society through the development of banking, education, communication systems, international trade etc,

b) the development of class organisations committed to the reorganisation of the state on a class basis.

2. Working Class power, by seizure or otherwise

3. Restructuring of socialization whle spreading the benefits of economic growth across the world.

One Hundred, two hundred years later, the restructuring should reach the point where it can be said that huge disadvantages accruing from the division of capital from labour have been overcome.

[Dimentio]

http://increvablesanarchistes.org/album_photo/phot1968/68dess_10wolinsky.jpghttp://increvablesanarchistes.org/album_photo/phot1968/68dess_2wolinsky.jpg

Frame 1
Delegate: Comrades, it seems that you have stopped work.
Workers: Yea, Yea, Yea

Frame 2
Delegate: If you've gone on strike it means that you want to make some demands. I'm your delegate and you should hide nothing from me!

Frame 3
Delegate: Its your wages right comrades? You want a raise, right? That's what it is, right?

Frame 4
Delegate: Or else it's job security? Or vacation? I'll have to get the government and owners to face their responsibilities. Speak to your delegate who loves you. Go ahead speak.

Frame 5
Delegate: YOU DUMB BASTARDS! Are you going to tell me why you are on strike? YES OR SHIT?
Workers: We want REVOLUTION.

Frame 6
Delegate: Revolution! Your CRAZY! The government and the owners would never allow it.

***********************************************
Simply looking at the tag cloud at the bottom of the board you notice that "revolution" is one the most used words in our discussions. The forum itself is called Revolutionary Left and many of us deem ourselves revolutionaries. We want "revolution," but do we know what that is?

What “revolution” are you fighting for? Is it a physical upheaval? Is it a mass realization of exploitation? It is it occupied workplaces and schools? Change in government? Is it tangible or conceptual? What are the actual processes of “revolution”? What does it look like?

One of the major criticisms of radical-leftism are that its politics are idealist and unrealistic or that there are no concrete objectives, just a vague aspiration for “revolution.” I think this critique often comes out of an unclear definition of revolution.

So, what is revolution?

A change in control of the means of production from the few to the many. If possibly without force, if necessary through force.

[ajs2007]

Well there are many kinds of revolutions, both in terms of their class content, their success or otherwise, etc., but if you're looking for one feature of a revolution I think Trotsky's characterisation from the Preface to his "History of the Russian Revolution" is useful and concrete:

"The most indubitable feature of a revolution is the direct interference of the masses in historic events."

[Yehuda Stern]

It's a good thing everyone has decided to be very concrete in this debate.

[Dean]

Revolution means to shift the orientation of human social existence. In the communist sense, its means that all the conflicts of today are ulitmately based on individualist, anti-social behavior. The conflicts must culminate into a situation whjere society rationally shifts toward social interest, whether that means basic changes in state and local governmnet participation, or a widespread fight between those with power and those without.

Revolution today means a shift from the competitive, disassociative social conditions to an inward-looking society characterized by an associative social orientation.

[Winter]

Progress.

[JimmyJazz]

I have always thought of political revolution as a movement/civil war that puts in place a new constitution.

Social revolution is harder - but I know it when I see it.

[Yehuda Stern]

Progress.

This is great. The guy posting asked for people to speak concretely and not use slogans, and you did just that. Bravo.


I have always thought of political revolution as a movement/civil war that puts in place a new constitution.

Then just since the Bolshevik revolution, Russia had... 3 political revolutions! Not to mention one or two before the revolution.

[InvileMachina]

Revolution, to me, is merely an agent of evolution.


It isn't pretty. It isn't romantic. It's ugly and it's violent. However, it is a must if we as a species are to take steps towards our own evolution.


What revolution am I fighting for? Do I believe in?


The complete destruction of myths and ideologies that prevent human beings from seeing themselves as one part of a massive whole.


or, to be more blunt. Radically altering society to the point where base animalistic instincts are not allowed to rule over intellect. Re-shaping the human psyche so that certain primal instincts do not prevent the progress and evolution of the race as a whole.

[SwordofThePeace]

The name revolution must be done away with, it is only a name... it must stand as a direct opposition to injustice and tyranny of every shape and form... simply sying this group must rise up and take control fo production or that group needs to assert itself of the other is foolishness...the disease that got us to that point in the first place will still be with us... Look at the example of the most successful revolutionary in the history of humanity Muhammed, I'm certain some if not most of the readers are scoffing right now but hear me out and if not read what Michael Hart wrote in his book The 100 Most Influential People in History... The society which Muhammed came from was highly oppresive to all but a small group, and once he was successful in establishing Islam in the land the people were united... people still had varying economic status but from one to another they were all equal, the poorest of them were generally the leaders... and someone without rank or position could demand justice from his leaders if he felt the leader guilty of tyranny... so forget the word revolution, because if it leads to anything less than the equality of everyman woman and child then count me out, cause soon we will struggle with the new statis quo... what pulls our spirt everytime we pass a destitute person clinging to the dust, or urges us to do something when we hear of massive layoffs while CEOs make 1/3 of the profit, or makes our pulse quicken when we see another soverign nation invaded and its women, children and elderly killed in bombing raids, is our sense of justice... All of us have it though some would deny it... Muhammed said an unjust nation will fall no matter what its religion is, and a just nation will succed no matter what its religion is...so don't be afraid, continue to fight the injustice because victory is near...

[Bilan]

These are precisely the vague answers I was not looking for.

Those aren't vague answers in any sense. You'd be more accurate in deeming them sloganistic, if anything; but they're not 'vague'.




The question is what does revolution look like. Saying the above does not actually show that we know what revolution is. How are the processes in a "complete transformation of society"? Who is "giving the workers the means of production"? How does the "abolition of all existing social conditions" come about and what is included in this category of "social conditions" ?

- What do you mean how are the processes? Do you mean what?
- No one is giving the workers the means of production - such an opinion is both utopian and ridiculous; the working class is to seize the means of production; seize is not giving, it's taking.
- The abolishment of all existing social conditions comes about from physically altering the existing structures of society - that of hierarchical social (white dominance, patriarchy, etc) and economic (essentially, the existing of an exploiting and exploited class) classes.

These are not abstract structures, and I find it peculiar that you're approaching them as such. The existing of two opposing class (The working class and the capitalist class) are bi-products of existing relations within production, and within society generally. "Workers" and "bosses" is a physical manifestation of these classes. The antagonisms which exists between these two classes are logical progressions of its own structures; they will clash because they have too: their ends are entirely opposed.

I suppose I can see where you're coming from on the notion of the vagueness of socialism - though, as I pointed out, it's sloganistic, not vague.
For me, I found one essay really eye opening and gave me alot of clarity.
It's called socialism reaffirmed (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_ztHKlN_ObwC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=Socialism+reaffirmed+Maurice+Brinton&source=web&ots=HO-6nrL4sN&sig=yv_AzxuC9u1valeiJE6Cav-YuTs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result).

[InvileMachina]

The name revolution must be done away with, it is only a name... it must stand as a direct opposition to injustice and tyranny of every shape and form... simply sying this group must rise up and take control fo production or that group needs to assert itself of the other is foolishness...the disease that got us to that point in the first place will still be with us... Look at the example of the most successful revolutionary in the history of humanity Muhammed, I'm certain some if not most of the readers are scoffing right now but hear me out and if not read what Michael Hart wrote in his book The 100 Most Influential People in History... The society which Muhammed came from was highly oppresive to all but a small group, and once he was successful in establishing Islam in the land the people were united... people still had varying economic status but from one to another they were all equal, the poorest of them were generally the leaders... and someone without rank or position could demand justice from his leaders if he felt the leader guilty of tyranny... so forget the word revolution, because if it leads to anything less than the equality of everyman woman and child then count me out, cause soon we will struggle with the new statis quo... what pulls our spirt everytime we pass a destitute person clinging to the dust, or urges us to do something when we hear of massive layoffs while CEOs make 1/3 of the profit, or makes our pulse quicken when we see another soverign nation invaded and its women, children and elderly killed in bombing raids, is our sense of justice... All of us have it though some would deny it... Muhammed said an unjust nation will fall no matter what its religion is, and a just nation will succed no matter what its religion is...so don't be afraid, continue to fight the injustice because victory is near...



What your saying is very noble, but sadly reality isn't so pretty. Right now,as it stands today, only two things control the majority of mankind. Those being self interest and fear. No matter what political theory or ideology you believe in, those two fundamentals aren't going to change overnight. It's the human condition.



Dictators don't become dictators by themselves. The masses give them that power. Karl Marx was right when he said "Revolutions are the locomotives of history." I think the word revolution is just fine.




The revolution I believe in, is one that takes into account the selfish nature of mankind, and sets up a system that maintains an orderly society yet at the same time forces the human race to evolve to a point where potentially your noble philosophy would have a chance to flourish.



We have to evolve as a species until we get to the point where mankind see's itself as one collective organism, and where we can intelligently be the agents of our own evolution. If we fail in getting to that point, we will be the cause of our own extinction.

[the_me_collective]

A radical transformation in the way we manage our society.