Naive theories of revolution
Last edited Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)
I've heard it from various sectors most of my life: what this country needs is a revolution
I used to say it myself, back in my pothead days during the Nixon era. Looking back, I can only be embarrassed by that, since my impression now is that my friends and I really only ever said that as an excuse not to do anything: this won't work, that won't work, nothing will work except a revolution
I still hear it today, time to time, almost always from strangers when I'm hoping to get them to do something: nah, that won't work, we need a revolution. But when I talk to them, they always remind me of my friends and myself forty-some years ago: they just don't sound like they have any definite idea what they're talking about; they never appear to have spent much time educating themselves about any of the many boring details; they seem lost and groping for a slogan and a quick fix
A real revolution involves seizing power, usually by force, so one needs to understand exactly what powers exist and how those powers are used and what is accomplished by the use of those powers. In a country such as the modern US, such an analysis may require very hard and tedious work. You need to consider the various ways your opponents could fight back against you, if you threaten their power, and in fact there are many ways. I think it is pointless to attempt a complete enumeration here, but note that would-be revolutionaries do not control the instruments of communication, do not control distribution of essential consumer products, and do not control local or state police or the national military -- any of which might be used to thwart a attempted seizure of power: in a region in open rebellion, one might anticipate responses from newspapers, radio or television; one might anticipate curtailed phone or internet services; one might anticipate curtailed electricity or gasoline or food supply; one might anticipate use of state or local police or of the national military
In a politically divided country such as the US, revolution almost certainly entails civil war, and such wars are complicated: their outcomes involve such considerations as: who is best organized, who controls strategic positions, and who has superior access to personnel and materiel resources. The outcome of a violent struggle, under these circumstances, is likely to be significant demolition of infrastructure and a high casualty rate, leaving political scars that last generations
Politics remains essential throughout any revolution and into whatever post-revolutionary period follows. One simply cannot neglect issues of public opinion, and this requires not only understanding of local conditions but also the clear statement of concrete aims
And merely aiming to overthrow an existing system is inadequate as a concrete aim. It is always easier to organize people in opposition to an existing system, than it is to organize people to work together for some positive change: social discontents are perennial. At the bottom line, this means that the population can endorse revolution long before there is any real consensus about what is to be done, after seizing power from those who hold it, because the revolutionaries are likely to be a motley mix of people with different ideas. Anyone, who hopes a great leader will emerge to resolve that problem, will probably be sorely disappointed, for great leaders are always scarce: it is very common, that people who want to be considered great leaders turn out to be as shallow and self-centered in their thinking as most everyone else
Remembering some history of revolutions and rebellions might be useful here
The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917, but promptly confronted substantial technical difficulties, such as keeping rail transport reliable. That October revolution was followed by five years of civil war, during which Stalin managed to embed himself safely in the party apparatus, after which he managed to consolidate dictatorial power for himself. As Trotsky wrote from exile in Mexico: The party organization substitutes itself for the party, the central committee substitutes itself for the organization, and, finally, a dictator substitutes himself for the central committee. The Bolsheviks had once organized around the slogan "All power to the worker-soldier councils" but when this did not prove immediately workable, it was abandoned in favor of highly-consolidated power
The left-wing German revolution of 1918 led to abdication of the Kaiser and formation of a new weak state, with little power; the entire Weimar era was wracked by political violence; and within barely a decade and a half, the right-wing Nazis were in control. The revolution had been largely spontaneous, and at the moment when it seemed to have succeeded, people started to look for "leaders" -- with the result that existing politicians stepped forward, promising that they knew how to handle matters: this meant that they compromised with rightwing extremists against the left, producing a complete and permanent split between the KPD and SPD that ultimately prevented any united front against the Nazis in the early 1930s
The Iranian revolution provides another instructive case. Here, opposition to the Shah included both liberal and fundamentalist groups, but it became politically expedient to organize from religious locations, as these were not as easy for the Shah's supporters to attack. So, at the end of day, the fundamentalists had firm control of the organizations and rather than a liberalized state, a fundamentalist theocracy resulted
The South African experience shows that it can be possible to make some progress in such struggles, but the partial success there involved several peculiar features: the aggrieved class formed the majority of the country's inhabitants, and it was so essential to the economy that it was represented in almost every workplace; there was a long history of failed resistance, from which not only organizers but the public-at-large eventually began to learn specific lessons; organizing occurred in multiple venues, over an extended period; there were well-established and clearly-stated goals, and the political questions were constantly considered
The Russian experience suggests the dangers of a revolution led by a political minority; the German experience, the dangers of merely spontaneous revolution; and the Iranian experience, the dangers of revolutions involving groups with no common goal other than overthrow of the existing system. The South African example is instructive for its reliance on mass organizing, across society, with decreased emphasis on leaders and careful attention to political work
Whether one considers oneself a reformist or styles oneself a revolutionary, it is simply impossible to win long-term struggles without grassroots organizing for concrete goals, using every political tool available to us, and the choice of goals, the skilled organizing work, and the political effort all require understanding and experience that may take years to develop and to teach to those who want to win the fights
= new reply since forum marked as read
I've studied revolutions from history and especially the "spontaneous" February revolution AND the October revolution. And I've even thought a lot about the issues raised in the OP and this post. In fact, that's why after 40 years of being a "salon" Trotskyist, I finally joined a group. A group is supposed to BE the vanguard which means they have to think about these issues.
socialist_n_TN: A serious revolutionary. 
with ALL details laid out in an internet post.
