Two questions on Revolution...

[Cult of Reason]

I have been thinking about revolution, and I have two questions:

1. My impression (based on very little historical knowledge) is that most revolutions are, in the short term, the result of a food shortage or other calamity. How many cases were there where this was not so? Were they of any significance? Can it happen today?

2. This might be less of question than a concern. As I said, in the past many revolutions were as a result of the system currently in use malfunctioning, be it a food shortage or some other thing. However, were not these all in low energy economies, where such change would be slow? In the led up to the revolution, there would still be food to eat, time to plan, or just time for ideas to ferment in the minds of the people. There are several reasons for this: an overwhelmingly agrarian society in most cases, almost all labour oming from the human animal, not the electrically or otherwise powered machines of production (simple plows with possibly a horse (or pulled by another human) rather than a tractor), smaller population etc.. In France, food shortages slowly increased in severity, eventually resulting in revolt rather than mass starvation or the like. In Russia and in Germany, the destruction of the fruits of the labours of both humans and machines in WW1 resulted in slow hardship and slowly rising and simmering discontent before the final spark of violent action.

But what, then, of high energy economies, those in which most people on this board live? Those where the overwhelming majority do not till the land but reside in either of the urban or suburban wastelands? Where there is only sufficient food produced due to energy from machines in the farming activity (use of tractors, combine harvesters, pesticides, fertilisers etc.) and other factors that result in the production of more food than there would be otherwise? Where due to this the population is so much higher than it was without those techniques? Where all of this food (and other fruits of human and machine labour) are transported vast distances into the aforementioned cities to feed the populace?

What if such a calamity were then to happen? What should happen if there is a sudden shortage of non-human energy? Tractors and combine harvesters, deprived of petroleum, would be useless for farming. Pesticides and fertilisers might no longer
be produceable in large quantities. Even if food could be produced, there is the much more urgent problem of the distribution of that food. Most people that I know do not have stacks and stacks of tins stored in a larder, only food in the fridge for a few days (that is assuming that the fridge still works), so if the distribution (through lorries or trains) stops, then those in the cities will starve. Then consider water processing, shortage of water could be a very serious result of a major failure within the system.

All of these things might result in a sudden crashing of living standards, possibly too fast for revolution before people reallystart suffering? This could be caused by many things: peak oil (assuming its validity), total war or possibly even another Depression.

I am confident that someone will be able to show that revolution would still be possible if a high energy economy suffered catastrophe, and/or that it is possible to have revolution without catastrophe. Is my logic flawed? Have I displayed ignorance? Have I misinterpreted or ignored important things? Please, enlighten me...



Liberty...

[Cult of Reason]

Did I place this in the wrong subforum?

[Cult of Reason]

*Bump.*

I would appreciate answers for these two questions. They are still causing me concern.

[Scars]

1. No, not really. But this goes hand-in-hand with what Marx and other radical thinkers said. In order for the majority of people to get to the point that they believe that the present system is not only doomed, but must be changed in the best interests of society as a whole then it must be failing on the most basic levels- food being pretty much teh most basic level there is.

Humans only NEED three things- food (including water), shelter and warmth. If a social system can no longer provide all three of these things then there will be massive discontent.

The only influential revolution that I can think of would be 1968 in France, but that was more a rebellion than a revolution. Indeed the conservatives strengthened their position following 1968, De Gaulle being reelected after the rebellion finished by a landslide greater than anyone expected.

From a revolutionary point of view, as Nechayev (if I remember correctly) said, "The worse, the better".

2. You pose a good and interesting question- space and economic reality (as opposed to economic theory) are two things widely ignored by the far-left. I thinK i need to ponder this a bit before I answer.

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that the kind of "catastrophe" that you posit would result in "martial law" and, if modern conditions could not be restored, then war-lordism followed by feudalism.

In other words, for proletarian revolution followed by communism to take place, then all the "high-tech" (or "high energy") resources must either "stay on" or be "quickly restored".

I saw with my own eyes in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina what happens after "total collapse"...and it ain't revolution or communism.

Healthy young males "band together" and take what they need (or think they need) to survive. Everybody else dies! Had ten days been allowed to pass before the National Guard arrived (instead of five), New Orleans would have been reduced to the level of Somalia.

After 20 days, there would probably have been cannibalism.

Fortunately, the "net" of interconnections in modern capitalist societies is very "thick"...so "total collapse" is not possible except under extraordinary conditions. The bourgeois media, for example, kept showing pictures of New Orleans...making it impossible for the federal government to ignore the situation there.

The "collapse" of capitalism in Marxist terms refers to events like the "Great Depression"...where resources were abundant but could not be distributed because of the constraints of the capitalist system itself.

Revolution will come not because "there's not enough" but because "there's more than enough" but the system won't let it be distributed.

[LoneRed]

ya i went down to N.O. and also say the levels of religious belief, as well as the failures of capitalism, and communism isnt being made, although groups like common ground collective show that things can get done when people work together out of solidarity, rather than the whole individualist craphole of a belief

[Cult of Reason]

From a revolutionary point of view, as Nechayev (if I remember correctly) said, "The worse, the better".

Should revolutionaries, then, deliberately worsen the situation (by voting for a reactionary political party, for example) in order to accelerate the existence of revolutionary conditions?

It seems to me that the kind of "catastrophe" that you posit would result in "martial law" and, if modern conditions could not be restored, then war-lordism followed by feudalism.

I think it would actually go much further than that. Cities would cease to be viable (until such time as system was repaired, assuming that was possible) leading to mass starvation. There would then only be simple farming for those fortunate to live in the countryside. The primmies would almost get what they want, except that the technology would still be there. Until such time as there was outside assistance (assuming the outside is not affected) we might get tribalism with guns, etc..

All this, of course, depends on the root cause of the collapse. If it is solid lack of resources (eg. peak oil) then what I said would probaby be true. For total war and Depression, however, I am not so sure.

If total war, then after collapse it might be possible for involvement from outside countries or areas, those not involved with the war. Then we either get Marshall Plan 2, or a new Third World area that is exploited.

For Depression, I think there would both be attempt at martial law and an exodus from urban to rural areas, but still mass starvation, because even though the resources are there, a chain reaction (started by the failure that caused this mess in the first place) would result in the absense of organisation or ability to distribute materials to where they are needed (petroleum to tractors. for example), possibly because the distrubution network is in need of those exact same things.

My thought patterns are now circular, a very annoying circumstance, and giving me a headache.

In other words, for proletarian revolution followed by communism to take place, then all the "high-tech" (or "high energy") resources must either "stay on" or be "quickly restored".

Indeed, which leads me to think of a possible solution (one which does not work in the case of peak oil). Basically, a revolution or some similar must be half done before material hardship arises. The majority, or a sizeable minority, of the people must be anti-capitalist and in favour of their own control over production and distribution. Then, as the P$ starts to fail to distribute and produce goods, they must seize the means of production and distribution immediately (or before), so then there never really is a technological collapse. There are a few problems with that, though. First, they must know what is going to happen, more or less. Second, they must be in favour of their own control (no elected politicians, no "great leaders", and no principal of exchange), so that they can carry on distributing and producing regardless of what happens to monetary matters. It would be massively ineffient and wasteful, but not a collapse. This could subsequently be improved.

So, I consider my unwritten assumption when I began this thread: before the problems, people are content with the P$ and so not radicalised and so would never dream of changing anything. That is the problem that must be resolved. There must be revolutionary intent (if not an actual revolution) before things breakdown. A daunting prospect, I think.

I hope I am not being as incoherent as I think I am!

extraordinary conditions

Like peak oil, total war or Depression.

The "collapse" of capitalism in Marxist terms refers to events like the "Great Depression"...where resources were abundant but could not be distributed because of the constraints of the capitalist system itself.

Revolution will come not because "there's not enough" but because "there's more than enough" but the system won't let it be distributed.

So instead the distribution (or production, the result is the same) is purposefully restricted by the establishment so that their system remains indefinitely. Wars for the destruction of the fruits of production, for example (which takes us back to the total war scenario, oh my).

Linked to the last paragraph and the last parentheses, it seems that it would be necessary to encourage discontent based not on material hardship, but on the material sufficiency (well, illusion of material sufficiency and near sufficiency) being eclipsed by the potential plenty (abundance as defined by Technocracy&#33 that is capable of being produced and distributed. They must be constantly reminded that their birthright is being withheld from them in order to perpetuate the P$! There are probably difficulties with that. What might they be?

Again I think I am becoming incoherent. Please point out how, if I am.

I hope nobody minds if this develops into a "general learning for this particular user" thread.

My head aches.