Doug wrote:
On Nov 2, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
M & E lived in an age when the Europeans were revolutionary. That's a
long time ago. :->
So who's revolutionary now?
Doug
=======================
Good question.
My answer: Subjectively, many people. Objectively, very few - in the West
or elsewhere.
There have been many conscious revolutionaries in the past 150 years whose
purpose has been to establish a socialist society but whose time has been
spent fighting for reforms under capitalism. Revolutionaries accomplished
their goals in Russia and China for a short historical period but these
societies have since reverted (or are reverting) back to private ownership.
Overall the results have been meagre. The only surviving socialist society
is Cuba, and it might well follow the Chinese and Russian road when the
revolutionary leadership passes.
I wouldn't describe the contemporary Islamist or Latin American movements as
"revolutionary" in the sense that they are aiming to change the existing
capitalist mode of production in their countries, although it's not clear to
me what Chavez has in mind. In general, these movements are anti-imperialist
and want their societies to develop more autonomously and their peoples'
living standards raised and cultures protected within the framework of the
global capitalist economy. They are worthy of support that basis. However,
the fact that they sometimes have to resort to armed struggle to achieve
their goals doesn't in and of itself make them revolutionary.
Unlike intellectuals, for whom ideas typically precede action, the masses
don't consciously set out to overthrow the system. They fight to reform it
by pressing for democratic rights and institutions where these don't exist
and, when they gain these, by typically favouring parties which are more
supportive to their redistributive aims against those which aren't.
The masses only become revolutionary when the existing system proves
unwilling or unable to make concessions to them. People learn through their
daily life experiences to be very cautious about taking dangerous leaps in
the dark, and conditions must be such that they consider they have no other
choice but to make a radical break with the old system and experiment with
an untested alternative.
The classical Marxists more than a century ago organized themselves into
revolutionary parties because they had arrived at this stage. They believed
they had discovered the laws of motion of capitalism and that the
contradiction between the forces and relations of production had reached the
breaking point. As capitalism continued to expand and recover from crises,
this became less apparent and over time Marxism lost its widespread
ideological appeal and these parties disappeared or were integrated into the
system. The collapse of the Soviet Union and transformation of China marked
the end of that historical period. That's not to say Marxism and the mass
movement which it inspired wouldn't revive under the right conditions; I
think it would. But everything starts with conditions, not ideas.
