Revolutionary potential in Britain & the first world.
- This topic has 28 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
JordanB wrote:Why do you think it is that these vanguard parties go on to establish state capitalism rather than socialism ?
The vanguard revolution model is the form the transition from feudalism to capitalism took in states where feudal social relations where more entrenched, they just used certain aspects of socialist ideology to get everyone on board. Lenin himself knew that socialism or communism (both are the same for us) was impossible at that stage in history and that for them state-capitalism would be the only possibility.Also, you simply can't force people to co-operate. You can't get to a society of mutual co-operation, which is what socialism is or it is not socialism, without the majority wanting and understanding it.
Judging from my personal experience with human beings & a just a breif cursory look at history, I can tell that within near enough any large enough group, there'll always be individuals who can be bought. "If" the majority supported socialism and key fugures with the movement were assassinated it might end up strengthening the cause, yes ! That's just the thing though isn't it, the majority don't support it, they support this materialistic capitalist culture & don't want to change it….because….They're not desperate for change & socialism. The majority dream of past glory years, of British Imperialism, if you have your finger on the pulse of society you would realize this.
If that's the case then, we'd better just give up, or join the various authoritarian fantasists who play at being Bolsheviks at the weekends.unless socialism is accepted and embraced by the majority of workers- the eastenders watching, BGT voting, politically abstaining, materialistic bought off, all of them, then socialism can't happen.anyway, what wrong with being materialist?
Actually there are many rebellions & revolutions around the world taking place every year. Workers in countries such as India are always organizing strikes & trying to build revolution. There are many factors in why they've not yet successfully created revolution. The main reason being because of the lack of organization within the leadership of their own groups, not to mention infiltration by their own government agencies to quell dissent. Than you have the cast system itself, which basically indoctrinates Hindu's to not rebel against authority because it's bad Kharma & will effect you in your next incarnation. There are many facets to this situation. First worlders rarley understand what these conditions are like & they don't usually take the time to research how the people in the third world are organizing. It's a struggle, struggles take time. Then there's countries like The Republic of Conga & numerous other countries in Africa at one point successfully staged revolutions but were constantly under attack by the opposistion groups, that are basically C.I.A proxy groups. When The Soviet Union fell, the financial aid that helped these groups ended & they could no longer fend off the opposition & were eventually overwhelmed by the western backed forces. Corruption within their own ranks also played a role in the disintergration of these socialist republics. Groups like FARC in Colombia would have probably established a socialist republic years ago if it wasn't for the U.S intervention, via the C.I.A, funding the opposition against them with advanced weaponry & millions upon millions of dollars in military aid.
As you, I do not have the answers to everything I am forever learning & not above criticism & mistakes. From observing society in general from across Britain & the western world in general. I see on average, an apathetic population of people who are not concerned with Socialism. Eastenders & Big Brother seems more pleasing to the masses at the time being. This is my honest observation. Did you pay close attention to the last general election ? Apathy galore ! Chavez was no saint that's for sure but there were & still are positive socialist reforms he made in the form of education & cooperatives etc. I whole heartedly agree with that quote from Eugene V. Debs, revolution does have to start in the nation state though & have a domino effect.
No that's not the case ! I'm not making an arguement for apathy here, I'm being honest. Che never took that attitude did he ? I think the key here is to try & inform people in colleges, online, in our communities etc. Honestly though, how many of you on this forum actually canvas, attend anti war protests & organize ? I mean no disrespect in asking this, I'm just curious. Oh & capitalist materialism is narcissistic & is made on the exploits of the workers of the third world in sweat shops, thats what I find wrong with it. You should look into Bill Ayers philosophy on revolution & socialism, in some ways his point of view is a lot like the SPGB he's rather interesting & not stagnating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NcyBPvLoHYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHN7qcwGDBI
Please do elaborate. I'm still waiting for a response to my question concerning activism & organizing too.
"Workers in countries such as India are always organizing strikes & trying to build revolution." Yes, you are spot on…workers WITH jobs and therefore possessing some industrial muscle, not the destitute hungry who lack any means of resistance and who have no reserves to sustain a strike much less a revolution. If the revolutions are being constantly suppressed by such bodies as the CIA and Western countries , then surely we should be concentrating our resources in educating workers in those places to have the revolution because it is they who determine the outcome elsewhere in the world.
Exactly Alan ! This is the whole third worldist persprective. Resistance in the first world, revolution in the third world. Resistance in the fist meaning for us to protest the wars & create an awarness about how our tax paid money is going towards propping up dicatatorships & oppresive regiems in the third world, via: social media, organizing, canvassing & good old fashion banter. This would all help contribute towards pulling the troops out of the third world & might help cut funding of these oppresive regiems. We could vote for UKIP too if we really wanted to help create the conditions that would be perfect for the mobilization of the masses, to cause revolution because UKIP would most certainly mess up the economy if they got in & this would create choas & order would emerge out of that power vaccum but the masses would need to be organized before hand. The thing is though it's very unlikely to happen because if we're to be honest most people in the first world are priviledged & don't want to give up their standard of living/consumer toys, our culture is narcissistic & very apathetic. We talk about the noble principles of socialism while sipping on tea that was manufactured from the exploits of the third world & at the same time typing away on our computers that are manufactured by slaves more or less in China. So far from revolutionary potential aren't we !?
JordanB wrote:Why do you think it is that these vanguard parties go on to establish state capitalism rather than socialism ?Basically, because the economic, social and political situation in the countries where they got power meant that the development of capitalism ((as a society and economy based on minority ownership, wage labour and production for sale) in one form or another was the only way forward.It is true that, even in 1917, it would have been possible to have established socialism on a world scale. In fact, given that capitalism is already a worldwide system, so socialism can only be too. So socialism cannot be established in just one country alone as the Bolsheviks, the Vietcong, etc were trying to do (or at least saying they were trying to do).Groups like these having won power in one economically backward country had no alternative but to develop capitalism in one form or another. Because of their statist approach in their case this was likely to be state capitalism where the state would fulfil the role that had been fulfilled by private capitalists in other countries.Actually, it was Lenin himself who first said that state capitalism was the only way forward for Russia. Which is what happened for 70 years, but now they have reverted to the mixed state/private capitalism that exists in most other countries. Vietnam too, with Cuba under immense pressure to take the same road.
So are you more of a Trotskyist communist rather than a Leninist ? To pull off global revolution with the lines that divide humanity this would take decades, maybe even centuries. I'm all for it but I just don't think it will happen this way, it seems to swift & prone to failure.
Quote:Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htmIn the 1840s Engels too was talking decades, not for the spread of the actual idea and its acceptance but for the development of "the means of production are available in sufficient quantity." I think you might agree that the technological feats achieved by capitalism (but which it has rarely taken advantage of) , can provide for all in sufficient quantity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.