Could the current economic malaise produce the conditions for The Revolution? Discuss.

If there wasn't a revolution in 1848 there is unlikely to be one now.
There have been worse periods of economic malaise in recent history even, under Heath, Callaghan and Thatcher that failed to spark revolution. And opportunities. Fucking hell, I put in my efforts at Grunwick in 1976 and Orgreave in 1984 to little avail.
Social deprivation in the UK tends to produce a collective shrug of the shoulders and a determination to 'get on with it' in the hope that things will get better. There is a reluctance to disturb the status quo that permeates all strata of our society and in some cases a real determination to abandon solidarity at the expense of our own petty prejudices.
Drink is making me cynical this evening. I'll leave it there.

Hey, the revolution is always just a t-shirt away...

I think the Miners strike was the closest we'll ever get in my lifetime.

Sadly, we have all* been doped by satellite tv and plasma screens into thinking we are better off than we've ever been (and f*ck everyone else).

It's all about how much we can get for ourseves now.

Think that glass of wine (wine? did I start drinking wine ffs?!) has made me feel maudlin...

* okay, not all. This board is proof of that.

My thoughts are that nearly any era of capitalism is rife with the possibility of revolution. It is a matter of organization and consistant leadership intersecting individuals in struggle at the precise time. Capitalism will continue to ebb and flow. There is no better or worse time to organize. The time is now.

I say let's chop th equeen's head off!

hmmm maybe this will work. What do I know about revolution ,i m French

the most important ingediant required for a revolution, is a revolutionary party, we don't have one and whilst the left is so fragmented we never will have.

Too many "sects" are too far up their own arse about who are the real representatives of the fourth international, to provide the required direction to turn protests into a revolution.

There will be plenty of discontent, strikes, and other protests but that'll be as far as it goes.

timmalloy wrote:

the most important ingediant required for a revolution, is a revolutionary party, we don't have one and whilst the left is so fragmented we never will have. Too many "sects" are too far up their own arse about who are the real representatives of the fourth international, to provide the required direction to turn protests into a revolution. There will be plenty of discontent, strikes, and other protests but that'll be as far as it goes.

huuu? you still believe in a revolution led by an avant-garde organised in a revolutionary party? and by the way, the idea that the "working class" is the bearer of social progress should have been laid to rest anyways... (just wanted to give examples... but that would send me off into ranting for too long.... )

We don't need a 'Revolutionary Party'. Vanguardist, elitist, and aload of bollocks!
And the revolution won't happen over night either.

boogey wrote:

timmalloy wrote: the most important ingediant required for a revolution, is a revolutionary party, we don't have one and whilst the left is so fragmented we never will have. Too many "sects" are too far up their own arse about who are the real representatives of the fourth international, to provide the required direction to turn protests into a revolution. There will be plenty of discontent, strikes, and other protests but that'll be as far as it goes. huuu? you still believe in a revolution led by an avant-garde organised in a revolutionary party? and by the way, the idea that the "working class" is the bearer of social progress should have been laid to rest anyways... (just wanted to give examples... but that would send me off into ranting for too long.... )

If not a revolutionary party, what will be the catalyst that changes discontent into revolution.

I believe the revolution should be carried out by the working class, not a 'party' or vanguard (and usually middle or upper class) organisation doing it for the working class. Genuine revolution can only come about from the revolutionary self activity and organisation by the working class on a mass scale, not vanguards, political parties, unions or elitist groups.

Obviously we would have to be organised, but the organisations would be built and shaped by ourselves, for ourselves, and to suit the needs of the moment (communes, workers collectives/other workplace groups, community groups etc.) and those in them. These organisations should be autonomous, inclusive, and organised on an equal and federative basis.

Build up a 'Culture of resistance', take collective action in the workplace and community etc etc...and finally... thats enough from me.

Rebel_Bull wrote:

I believe the revolution should be carried out by the working class, not a 'party' or vanguard (and usually middle or upper class) organisation doing it for the working class. Genuine revolution can only come about from the revolutionary self activity and organisation by the working class on a mass scale, not vanguards, political parties, unions or elitist groups. Obviously we would have to be organised, but the organisations would be built and shaped by ourselves, for ourselves, and to suit the needs of the moment (communes, workers collectives/other workplace groups, community groups etc.) and those in them. These organisations should be autonomous, inclusive, and organised on an equal and federative basis. Build up a 'Culture of resistance', take collective action in the workplace and community etc etc...and finally... thats enough from me.

I agree with you on the way we might best organise ourselves without hierarchies, elitist groups and leaders. Any other way would defy the purpose, at least for me. Listening to a lot the ideas about revolutionary processes as put forward by orthodox marxist groups makes me often think that I would be the first on the wall anyways...
I still don't see the so called working classes as the group that is or will be at the core of such actions and don't think organisation with emphasis on class makes much sense these days. If you look at the support for right wing agendas, for nationalist ideologies and the emphasis on "Volk" (or "People" in English) you see that they are particularly strong in working class segments of society. Everywhere else unfortunately as well, I guess.... Anyways, my point is that a revolution that gets rid of nationalist ideologies (Nations are just the modern translations of Dynasties anyways: Till WWI the english royal family's name was Wettin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and held titles in what just became Germany - but that's another story) inequalities based on constructed ethnicity, race, gender, age sexuality etc. will not come from "the working classes", check who is primarily involved in holding to those notions. ok, hope this wasn't too long....

People are too comfortable in the MEDCs, and fighting too hard to survive everywhere else. There *could* be something like Paris May 68 if we got a government that was like Thatcher's, but even worse (if its possible), or if another war was announced (Iran?) and people got super angry at it. But theres not enough conciousness amongst the 'masses' to effect radical change. I think the only hope would be a mass strike, but thats highly unlikely, espcially in the UK. Theres no party to lead people in revolution, so we'd have to rely on things getting worse here (or anywhere else) to such an extent that the 'normal' people, as in, not neccesarily political people, would get angry and demand change.
So some sort of autonomous uprising or general strike could happen if the situation got so bad EVERYWHERE (food shortages, war, corruption) but until that happens its unlikely.

I have to disagree with you on some points. Boogey, I think that the ruling class have done a good job at attempting to destroy the working class; destroying a sense of community that once existed (trade unions, all of Thatcher's bollocks etc), feeding people little luxuries here and there, and marginalising/scapegoating certain sections of the working class. Divide and rule tactics basically. Modern parties and the once 'working class' parties have abandoned the working class, and the Right have filled the gap. This is very shit as it just turns one section of the working class again another, normally one that is more vulnerable than itself.
It is necessary to have class consciousness and a sense of collective struggle for a revolution to happen. The only possible working class revolution is one where people use mass actions to smash the apparatus of the ruling class, any other 'revolution' will just produce a new ruling class.
Anyway, I've written too much again..

many years ago i lit a play called "what a way to run a revolution", a sort of revue / political musical about '26

at the end, as the battered miners crawled back to work, king george (i think) looked over the desperate scene and closed the piece with the line:

IT WAS AN AWFUL WAY TO RUN A REVOLUTION.... EVERYONE KNOWS: THE FIRST THING YOU HAVE TO DO IS GO OUT AND SHOOT ALL THE COPPERS!

so there you have it.

i can't for the life of me remember the authors name... must google!

DIMITRI

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks to all posters.