Revolutionary potential in Britain & the first world.
- This topic has 28 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I would like to start this discussion by asking what The SPGB views are on the potential of revolution in Britain & the first world in general.
Potentially it could happen, but only when the majority want it, understand what has to be done and democratically carry it out.When? Probably not next Tuesday.
Our message of real socialism is not directed just at workers in the so called "first world" but workers globally. For a revolution in the way we live to occur certain preconditions are required. Firstly, the potential for an abundance so human needs can be met. Secondly, a politically conscious working class aware that capitalism is not in their interests. In that you can't have socialism without socialists being in the majority.The evidence for the potential for abundance is all around us, but sadly the majority of workers are not seeking a society based on production for use and free access, where money has no pupose and the private ownership of the means of living is abolished.
I disagree. We in the western world are too fat & happy to revolt at this moment in time, even our poorest are nothing like the poorest in the third world. For the right social conditions to occur for revolution to become a possibility we would need to be desperate for change. Hungry stomachs are the backbone of every proletariat uprising & revolution, not bloated stomachs. I mean we can hardly be compared to the Russian peasantry back in 1917 or the Vitnamese peasantry etc. In saying this I'm not making an arguement for apathy, I'm making an honest observation. I really don't see any way of changing the system "democratically" through the ballot box. Even if this was a possibility the capitalist class would have that candidate assassinated in a heartbeat or bribe them etc. Whether we look at: Cuba, Russia, Vietnam, China, Venezuela or any other socialist country across the world, they had to fight for socialism physically, the capitalists or imperial colonialists never give up power through the ballot box. Salvador Allende was a perfect example of this.
JordanB wrote:Hungry stomachs are the backbone of every proletariat uprising & revolution, not bloated stomachs.I don't think that's right, from either a historical or theoretical point of view. Revolution and mere revolt are not the same. The socialist revolution has to be an action in which the wage and salary working class, as the vast majority in society, are democratically self-organised and moved by an understanding of what socialism involves, not by mere hunger (though some might well also be hungry).
Quote:I mean we can hardly be compared to the Russian peasantry back in 1917 or the Vitnamese peasantry etc.Quite. In these overwhelmingly peasant countries (ie without much of a working class) a peasant revolt was led by vanguard party which went on to establish state capitalism not socialism, the only possible outcome in the circumstances. There is nothing positive to learn from either for a revolution in advanced capitalist countries.
Quote:Hungry stomachs are the backbone of every proletariat uprising & revolution, not bloated stomachs.I usually quote James Connolly pessimistic view on trade union action..and he should know having been one of the leaders of the 1913 Dublin Lockout"Empty bellies up against fat wallets"How do you judge Paris 1968? Socialism, i think, will be inspired from aspiration not desperation.But if we take what you say is correct (which we don't)…then we should all be working against the working class, ensuring that they suffer and are in a constant dire condition of deprivation to spark the activism you so much seek. ALB has already questioned the actual historical accuracy of your comparisons but i in partiicular draw attention to Venezuela which you cite…can i merely suggest you look at the history of Chavez before you disparage elections and note the importance he chose to place upon them after his own failed earlier coup d'etat and then those subsequent attempted ones against him.
JordanB wrote:I really don't see any way of changing the system "democratically" through the ballot box. Even if this was a possibility the capitalist class would have that candidate assassinated in a heartbeat or bribe them etc.The WSM/SPGB have no leaders and have no leading candidate when we contest elections. Also socialism as an idea is not for sale. Which effectively means any bribes or corruption will not work. So any attempt of assassination or bribery under the circumstances of a majority supporting socialism would prove to be a damp squid and can only result in workers being more determined to abolish capitalism.
JordanB wrote:I really don't see any way of changing the system "democratically" through the ballot box.We are not in favour of 'changing the system' with out a majority being in favour. If workers will not vote for change then we can hardly expect them to take to the streets for it.On the other hand, we are not pacifists. If there is an overwhelming expression for change through the ballot box and the ruling class will not give way then we will remove them. Peacfully if possible but violently if necessary.
JordanB wrote:Salvador Allende was a perfect example of this.The support Allende enjoyed was not for socialism anyway. 'People's Unity' which he headed, was an alliance of the Chilean 'Socialist' Party, the Chilean 'Communist' Party and various smaller left-wing groups. Its short-term aim was to carry out various reforms in favour of workers and peasants within the context of capitalism. Its long-term aim, strongly influenced by the 'Communist' Party and people who thought like them within the 'Socialist' Party (of course the one was no more communist in the proper sense than the other was socialist), was something along the lines of what existed in Russia, i.e. state capitalism. Maybe Russian-style total state capitalism can't be established by peaceful means, but what relevance has this to establishing socialism?
Why do you think it is that these vanguard parties go on to establish state capitalism rather than socialism ?
The average "wage & salary working class" in tthe first world are often too caught up in the cycle of work (usually overtime & weekends too) & tending to their family life while being distracted by: materialism, the media circus & escapism (alcohol) in their free time. If they were hungry & impoverished they would be more motivated to understand why socialism is essential. I think it's critical to take into context the character of first world people when applying Marxist theory in the modern first world.
That's true but I think it's only fair to take into context the time & place Allende was living in. He had the Chilean colonial land owners, capitalists & the military to deal with. I think he was probably a socialist at heart but realized his ability was restricted unless he had the support of the majority of the masses & the military behind him to establish state capitalism & maybe even socialism.
JordanBI think you have a point when you say that many in the 'first world' are too caught up in their life cycles to want to be bothered about socialist politics. Or any politics for that matter. It could be said that many of the better off are downright complacent and see themselves as having done very well out of the current system.But if you have to be hungry and impoverished to want socialism, then by implication there would be more socialists in the third world than there are in the developed countries. But looking at the SPGB and its companion parties, I would say the opposite is the case (even though there aren't many of us).Members of the World Socialist Movement come from all walks of life. Anyone can get the message, it's just a pity so few have.
Quote:If they were hungry & impoverished they would be more motivated to understand why socialism is essentialWant to explain to me why there are never revolutions taking place whenever famine ravages a region of the world, and instead just dejection, desolation and despair prevails? After all, about a billion people are hungry right now yet we do not witness the upsurge in revolutionary consciousness you say should be the result. Socialists stand for a liberatory and emancipatory social revolution. It is a creative process to be built on hope and promise of constructing a new type of society. The working class are the agents of this because it is we who are the producers who can provide the wherewithal and necessities of abundance to the world. BTW, you have never responded to my own earlier comment…Hugo Chavez's committment to the democratic process. Nor answered why according to your logic we shouldn't be nihilistically encouraging more suffering and distress to "revolutionise" our fellow workers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.