Can there be a revolution in the UK

[In Bloom]

the Stalinist claptrap from Blair and co.

 

[Idris2002]

Of course an era where statist capitalism has been replaced by the post-fordist order of flexible accumulation, outsourcing, privatisation etc. may be one that has deprived itself of the means of integrating its population into the system.

But that may simply mean that that society is heading towards the 'common ruin of the contending classes' rather than a revolution.

 

[Idris2002]

 

[Maggot]

I don't think a revolution will happen as there's only a tiny minority of people who actually want one.

I can't think of any examples of revolutions in democracies.

 

[tbaldwin]

I don't think a revolution will happen as there's only a tiny minority of people who actually want one.

I can't think of any examples of revolutions in democracies.

Your probably right on point 1. But what about Chile on point 2?

 

[pregethwr]

Didn't think army coup's count as revolutions Or was there something about Allende election victory that was revolutionary?

 

[FreddyB]

I don't think a revolution will happen as there's only a tiny minority of people who actually want one.

I can't think of any examples of revolutions in democracies.

At the moment there are but that's because the majority are relatively happy with their lot. I don't beleive the relative prosperity we're told we're enjoying will last and the conditions for most people will get worse, perhaps to the point where a majority will force a change.

Do we actually have a democracy in a meaningfull sense? Are the people making the decisions actually accountable or do they buy the power?

 

[tbaldwin]

Didn't think army coup's count as revolutions Or was there something about Allende election victory that was revolutionary?

It was an overthrow by a group of workers of an elected government.
No the kind of change we might want but if you look at the 3 main protest movements against Blair 2 of them the Countryside Alliance and Petrol protesters were not exactly left wing.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think a revolution will happen as there's only a tiny minority of people who actually want one.

I can't think of any examples of revolutions in democracies.

This might have something to do with the fact that democray has only been the default political system in much of the world for about 20 years - not really long enough to judge. On top of that there was a revolution in democratic Spain in 1936, similiarly in Bolivia in 1952.

edit: oh yeah, and in Germnay in 1918-19, Hungary at the same time...

 

[pregethwr]

It was an overthrow by a group of workers of an elected government.
No the kind of change we might want but if you look at the 3 main protest movements against Blair 2 of them the Countryside Alliance and Petrol protesters were not exactly left wing.

Allende was elected, and the coup happened after the right won the 1973 parliamentary elections, but not by a sufficient majority to impeach him.

 

[tbaldwin]

I think maggot's point is the most important here. Revolutionary groups only appeal to a very narrow group of people. The only time they can convince themselves the people can be won over. Is when they hold lets not be nasty to somebody marches, whether it's anti war/anti racist or whatever.
But there seems no signs of people in any numbers willing to fight it out on the streets for revolutionary change.

 

[redsquirrel]

It was an overthrow by a group of workers of an elected government.

Since when was Pinochet and his US backed thugs workers?

 

[redsquirrel]

I don't think a revolution will happen as there's only a tiny minority of people who actually want one.

At the present time yes, but that could easily change.

 

[gurrier]

Didn't think army coup's count as revolutions Or was there something about Allende election victory that was revolutionary?

Not the victory itself, but what happened between 1971 and '73. There was a massive extra-parliamentary movement which was in the process of taking over the running of the country. For example, the cordones industriales were fairly large examples of workers' self-management, which were largely built from the bottom up. The coup was a pre-emptive strike against the building revolution, much like the spanish coup/revolution/civil war, which also took place in a 'democracy'. Unfortunately the capitalists learn their lessons, especially that you get your counter-revolution in early. If you look at Russia->Spain->Chile you see the ruling classes learning that you can't just allow the state to dissolve into communism, as soon as it looks like you might be on a losing trend, you go all out on the attack, no matter how far away the revolution might look.

 

[butchersapron]

I think maggot's point is the most important here. Revolutionary groups only appeal to a very narrow group of people. The only time they can convince themselves the people can be won over. Is when they hold lets not be nasty to somebody marches, whether it's anti war/anti racist or whatever.
But there seems no signs of people in any numbers willing to fight it out on the streets for revolutionary change.

But you're assuming here that revolution is wrapped up in party politics - that you must be involved in formal revolutionary organisation to take part in or believe in revolution, and that revolutions happened because of the activities of those parties rather than the great mass of the unalligned population, and that therefore small membership means no revolution is possible - no revolution in history would have happened if that was the real requirment for a revolution to take place.

 

[tbaldwin]

But you're assuming here that revolution is wrapped up in party politics - that you must be involved in formal revolutionary organisation to take part in or believe in revolution, and that revolutions happened because of the activities of those parties rather than the great mass of the unalligned population, and that therefore small membership means no revolution is possible - no revolution in history would have happened if that was the real requirment for a revolution to take place.

No what i'm assuming is that for a revolution to happen,is that a lot of people show they really want social change. Not by joining dying anarcho or trot groups but by showing a real mood and appetite for change.
And for me all the Leftie haters of Blair have not been as angry or determined to overturn him or any of his policies as people from the right.

 

[treelover]

in terms of buraucracy, the DWP can appear and act like a Stalinist organisation to those on welfare, indeed it has been also been described as a Maoist like setup in a state of permanent revolution.

 

[Epicurus]

I think if you look around the world at places where there is a history of revolution (or dictatorship) people seem more willing to come out onto the street to protest, (violently or not).

Most of the developing world I'd guess but I know South America and also in Europe in places like France, Italy and even spain the people seem far more willing to act on mass often with direct action than in England.

I think for the working class to revolt here would take something like the "impeachment" of President Fernando Crllor de mello in Brazil 1991/2. What he did was to announce that all the money in peoples personal saving accounts at all banks in Brazil will be taken by the government as a loan and we will pay you back in due cause. iirc He left something like R$500 (about £100) in peoples accounts and took everything else, at the same time as this he announced Student fees for public university.

The result was predicable I feel, the students all dressed in black and painted their faces and took to the streets with millions of working class and the president was impeached, no violence (which to this day still surprises me), the problem was that no-one emerged to take the leadership, looking back and having spoken with many people involved since; I think everyone was shocks that their protest had removed the president and didn't have a clue what to do next, the leader of the workers party was Lula (who is now president 10 years later), all this activity came on the back of massive demonstrations to allow the people to elect the president, (Fernando Crllor de mello was in fact the first directly elected president to take office as his predecessor died on the day he should have taken office and the vice president to over for that term)

 

[butchersapron]

Keep it under control baldwin. Why then, did you offer as evidence for the lack of revolutionary will the lack of membership of revolutionary groups as supporting evidence? I, and you both know that " for a revolution to happen,is that a lot of people show they really want social change" that's pretty bloody obvious - but you were the one equating that with membership of revolutionary groups - not me.

 

[Maggot]

This might have something to do with the fact that democray has only been the default political system in much of the world for about 20 years - not really long enough to judge. On top of that there was a revolution in democratic Spain in 1936, similiarly in Bolivia in 1952.

edit: oh yeah, and in Germnay in 1918-19, Hungary at the same time...

When I wrote that I knew you would come up with some examples!

Do we actually have a democracy in a meaningfull sense?

Everyone has a vote, how can it be more meaningful?

 

[butchersapron]

I think if you look around the world at places where there is a history of revolution (or dictatorship) people seem more willing to come out onto the street to protest, (violently or not).

Most of the developing world I'd guess but I know South America and also in Europe in places like France, Italy and even spain the people seem far more willing to act on mass often with direct action than in England.

I think for the working class to revolt here would take something like the "impeachment" of President Fernando Crllor de mello in Brazil 1991/2. What he did was to announce that all the money in peoples personal saving accounts at all banks in Brazil will be taken by the government as a loan and we will pay you back in due cause. iirc He left something like R$500 (about £100) in peoples accounts and took everything else, at the same time as this he announced Student fees for public university.

The result was predicable I feel, the students all dressed in black and painted their faces and took to the streets with millions of working class and the president was impeached, no violence (which to this day still surprises me), the problem was that no-one emerged to take the leadership, looking back and having spoken with many people involved since; I think everyone was shocks that their protest had removed the president and didn't have a clue what to do next, the leader of the workers party was Lula (who is now president 10 years later), all this activity came on the back of massive demonstrations to allow the people to elect the president, (Fernando Crllor de mello was in fact the first directly elected president to take office as his predecessor died on the day he should have taken office and the vice president to over for that term)

Something similiar happened in Argentina when the state froze people's bank accounts in 2001. That's all it took - but then Argentina also has much more violent labour history than the UK.

 

[tbaldwin]

Since when was Pinochet and his US backed thugs workers?

I think that part of allende's downfall was due to a lorry drivers strike.

 

[butchersapron]

I think that part of allende's downfall was due to a lorry drivers strike.

A strike initiated and financially supported by the CIA, on top of the sanctions.

 

[tbaldwin]

Keep it under control baldwin. Why then, did you offer as evidence for the lack of revolutionary will the lack of membership of revolutionary groups as supporting evidence? I, and you both know that " for a revolution to happen,is that a lot of people show they really want social change" that's pretty bloody obvious - but you were the one equating that with membership of revolutionary groups - not me.

Not wishing to Labour the point, But it's not the lack of size of revolutionary groups that i'm talking about as much as their lack of realism.

 

[Epicurus]

Something similiar happened in Argentina when the state froze people's bank accounts in 2001. That's all it took - but then Argentina also has much more violent labour history than the UK.

Yes I remember but I couldn't quote names for that one

@Maggot who said in answer to: "Do we actually have a democracy in a meaningfull sense?" said "Everyone has a vote, how can it be more meaningful?"
I would answer that just having a vote is meaningless unless you have a choice as to whom you can vote for; with a parliamentary system like in the UK politicians are answerable to "The Party" not only for being granted the seat but also for personal advancement, I would argue that only if the person YOU send to government is a representative and can be recalled by the people who elected them would YOUR vote be meaningful.

 

[Idris2002]

Everyone has a vote, how can it be more meaningful?

'The people of France enjoy the drink of Cognac through the medium of their representatives.'

 

[Ace]

Well Paris 1968 saw the largest general strike in History, so there was mass involvement at least - but of course that doesn't mean that all those participants were after revolution - though from reading all the literature i do think a huge amount actually did,and that was where the internal logic of where their actions were leading - whether they explicity articulated or ootlined that this was their intentions before hand or not. It's hard to look at events like that in formal terms, when movement is of the essence.

I can only say that it is now popularly seen as a de facto 'revolution,' if not Revolution.

I was reading a book about France in the post '45 era, with this enormous Communist vote sold out to Moscow. I think '68 was a sort of return of the repressed, from that. A huge pressure built up in the intervening years.

By all accounts the day was May 17th or something; when De Gualle was in Germany and had ordered the troops beyond the peripherique and the police to stay in their barracks; the march that day was through a deserted city, erriely quiet apparently, as if left to an occupying power; which, given the size and organization of the demostration you might be forgiven for thinking so.

During the recent L'Humanite centenary old PCF miltants who had defied the party line - which famously refered to Cohn Bendhit as a red-haired agitator jew ( cmphasis not mine ) - described the scene with an unmistakable tone of regret, for a historic opportunity lost.

Since then, of course, '68 has gained iconic status as a cultural revolution in a some ways strongly conservative and catholic country. We perceive ourselves as having had a decade of gradual 'social liberation,' the French, in retrospect, perceive that decade as having been compressed into one month.

I don't know, I am not a historian, how real the possibility of a revolution was. But I am constantly surprised by the persistence of '68 as myth.

Deleuze calls it one of those rare times in personal and collective history when being was revealed, for a while, in all its intensity.

Im inclined to think he was right.

 

[Idris2002]

Hmmm. Maybe the opportunity wasn't taken because they were acting out a revolutionary strategy of the past, in the context of a society where power was now organised in different.

Maybe that's why De Gaulle ordered the army and peelers to stay away, because he reckoned he could win by appearing to lose. . .

 

[FreddyB]

can anyone reccomend a decent book about '68?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I bet nobody can recommend one that won't be denounced by everybody else.