Can there be a revolution in the UK

[scawenb]

I agree with zine's and stuff but i mean - "The left" is devided. It's just a fact.

When was the 'Left' united?

When was any political movement united in that sense? The movement to overthrow feudalism didn't go in for a lot of internal bickerring.

Any political movement that is able to achieve something will almost certainly be made of of a number of political and social, even class, forces. It will also disagree an awful lot on very fundamental points and on immediate actions. Otherwise you just end up with a impotent povement of theorectical purist or a woolly indecisive group of people who avoid tackling the real issues.

Just stating that "People simply don't wan't a revolution" may be true now and was probably true in the 50 years before any revolution took place. I'm sure the working class had nothing but praise for the monarchy in the years leading to the English Civil War, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution - just thought they might work better without their heads.

 

[tbaldwin]

Interesting how unsure people from far left/revolutionary groups are about this question these days. It seems the everdecreasing circles are just going thru the motions but hardly anyone believes in radical social change these days.
It's all very well criticsing New Labour etc but where is a credible alternative vision?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Yes there can.

 

[tbaldwin]

What on earth are you on about Cockney Rebel? Don't workers power have anything to say on this subject?
Is your group committed to bringing about Revolutionary change or is it just committed to providing a group for moaners?

 

[cockneyrebel]

I'm afraid we're only committed to providing a group for moaners....

 

[poet]

Not unless things really go up shit creek. Modern politicians are so good at slowly turning up the heat on the frog-in-a-pan, we don't hop out until it's too late.

 

[scawenb]

It's all very well criticsing New Labour etc but where is a credible alternative vision?

I know invoking dead marxist writers is not very popular on here. But without offering it as a piece of sacred dogma, Lenin happen to write an interesting passage which may be relevant to the debate, and certainly chimes in with what I've argued. Revolutionary politics is far more fluid that offeringan alternative manifesto and expecting people to suddenly turn round and say "gosh you're right! How silly of us not to realise." The take to the barricades.

"To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.-to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will he a social revolution!
...
Whoever expects a "pure" social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is."

Vladimir Lenin, The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up, 1916.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x01.htm

 

[Idris2002]

This was wrt Easter week in Dublin wasn't it? That didn't exactly lead to socialism in Ireland, now did it?

 

[LLETSA]

This was wrt Easter week in Dublin wasn't it? That didn't exactly lead to socialism in Ireland, now did it?

No but it did lead to revolution. Which is what the thread is supposed to be about.

 

[audiotech]

Crucially, revolutions become possible when life becomes intolerable for the mass of people and when the ruling class is split on how to solve the crisis.

 

[brasicritique]

Revolution? Ha hahahahaa.NOPE!

 

[pintle]

A revolution by a divided group to place a divided corrupt institution with a divided inexperienced insitution. In a country with american bases and nuclear submarines. Even if it happened it wouldn't make things better. A "lifestyle" revolution is the only feasible positive outcome. A violent uprising would fail.

 

[audiotech]

A revolution by a divided group to place a divided corrupt institution with a divided inexperienced insitution. In a country with american bases and nuclear submarines. Even if it happened it wouldn't make things better. A "lifestyle" revolution is the only feasible positive outcome. A violent uprising would fail.

A 'revolution' involves masses of people acting on the world in order to change it and by acting on the world are changed in the process. Who are you to decide if it will be 'better'? At the very least it will be an improvement on the present set-up. Why do you assume it to be violent and where will this violence spring from? What do you mean by a 'lifestyle' revolution and who would it involve and what would be their strategy?

 

[audiotech]

Revolution? Ha hahahahaa.NOPE!

I suppose those arguing against slavery were also met by cynics and those with an interest in perpetuating the status quo.

 

[oi2002]

Marx had a line on the English proles that suggested it was rather unlikely that it was unlikely they would ever rebel while they could walk their dog in the park of a Sunday. Nothing has changed, another Cromwell is unlikely.

 

[Skate]

I don't think it's as if there isn't enough people who are willing to seriously aim for revolution, in the UK at least. Some the most successful actions I've known in my lifetime have been taken after a timely trigger, especially when compared to recent events. The poll tax riots, for example, involving just 200,000 people, helped bring down Thatcher, alongside people refusing to pay the tax, a great number of whom who hadn't committed a single offence in their whole lives before that.

It's striking to think that, in London, that's 800,000 less people than the number marching against the imminent Iraq war back in 2003. But from March the 20th onwards, across the country, not as many turned up for that day's emergency protest, nowhere near as many in the following weeks or months either. To me, that deadline was a lost opportunity and should have been the point at which action increased, not decreased.

 

[Ace]

Any revolution in the UK would have to face, at some point, this man

http://www.andrew.rosindell.com/

I reckon he could command at least 3 or 4 (Essex) divisions of some of the nastiest fuckers there is.

ok these lot don't look nasty, but you want to see what's behind them

 

[pintle]

A 'revolution' involves masses of people acting on the world in order to change it and by acting on the world are changed in the process. Who are you to decide if it will be 'better'? At the very least it will be an improvement on the present set-up. Why do you assume it to be violent and where will this violence spring from? What do you mean by a 'lifestyle' revolution and who would it involve and what would be their strategy?

read the whole thread, the "lifestyle" revolution statement is a referance to an earlier post

 

[scawenb]

Marx had a line on the English proles that suggested it was rather unlikely that it was unlikely they would ever rebel while they could walk their dog in the park of a Sunday. Nothing has changed, another Cromwell is unlikely.

We he was right they won't rebel if they are generally happy. But no one is talking about instant revolution.

And why could the English proles calmly walk their dog in the park on a Sunday - because the lived in the wealthiest, most powerful country on the planet Why the proles in the empire were worked to death with no Sunday pleasures the English gained some of the crumbs which fell from the colonial table. Britain still plays a lesser but still important role on the world stage and continues to benefit from the exploitation of the people and resources around the world.

This need not always be the case. It is dependent on maintaining this position. If there are revolutions abroad, if spheres of influence are lost and British capital no longer makes the same returns this will have a profound effect on the English proles and their Sunday strolls.

It is at that concrete stage that the argument between Revolution and Lifestyle change will be tested.

We must also not forget that English Proles have never been a undifferentiated mass nor have they been averse to using force to defend themselves. Many of the working class even here at the heart of imperialism have not had the luxury of a walk in the park. Just in recent decades we have had uprisings in Bristol (1980) London, Bradford and Liverpool(1981), and in Manchester, Birmingham and other Midland towns (1985); Miner's strike (1984-85) Trafalgar Square (1990); outbreaks in the North East, Oxford and Bristol (1991-92) in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham (2001); Anti Capitalism and May day (1999-2000).

 

[nino_savatte]

No chance, the last attempt at revolution in this country (1640) ended with a return to the monarchy. There's about as much revolutionary spirit in this country as there are humanitarians in the Pentagon.

 

[Ace]

No chance, the last attempt at revolution in this country (1640) ended with a return to the monarchy. There's about as much revolutionary spirit in this country as there are humanitarians in the Pentagon.

But the English Revolution was a massive influence on the French and the French on the American.

These things work globally, and the boring old cliches "in sleepy London town there aint no place for street fighting man" are boring old provincial cliches.

Of course they'll be a revolution in this country. The real question is when? In our lifetimes?

 

[Idris2002]

Given that in certain circles in the 1970s there was talk of bringing in the colonels, I'd say that at least some have seen a revolution in UK as a serious proposition.

 

[nino_savatte]

But the English Revolution was a massive influence on the French and the French on the American.

These things work globally, and the boring old cliches "in sleepy London town there aint no place for street fighting man" are boring old provincial cliches.

Of course they'll be a revolution in this country. The real question is when? In our lifetimes?

While this is true, those who took part hadn't the courage to see the thing through. Richard Cromwell? Whose idea was it for him to succeed his father? If it was his father's idea then it shows us that he had very little republican blood in his body and created what was, for all intents and purposes, a pseudo-monarchy. But then the only example of a republic was Venice and even then, it wasn't what we would recognise as one.

If the Geordies have owt to do with it then revolution will be more of a dream than a reality.

 

[bamboo]

First of all, Hi everyone, I'm bamboo

I don't think a major revolution of economic/social ideology will occur any time soon in this country, but a series of quite major reforms do need to take place, obviously, and they may well end up being mini revolutions, depending on how they occur.

Pintle mentioned the lack of a common direction amongst dissenters. I think we can address this by talking less about ideology and more about things that need to be fixed in our current ideology of capitalism. in other words forget left - right, assume that we are all capitalists and reform it so it is actually a proper system, then if that doesn't work major revolution will become a viable solution.

I'm talking mainly of monetary reform, getting control of our currency back in the hands of the people and out of control of the international banking institutions (which only work for the increase of their profits, and constantly fuck with our economy to increase their profits) and to outlaw currency speculation and usury (like it was in the good old days of canon rule). It kind of works for south korea (according to chomsky anyway). I think that these are issues, when fully understood, should be acceptable to people on both sides of the coin, the only people it is unacceptable are the minority of the seriously wealthy (basically anyone who has made all their money in banking and currency trading).

If we can reform the system in a way so that people can actually trust politicians to be working in their interest (removing private funding and special interest groups) we will stand a much better chance of coming to a peaceful consensus with a britain we can all be happy with.

Unfortunately, on a darker side there definately are some people that will have to be either imprisoned or exiled (or in my opinion brutally tortured and put to death slowly) with their fortunes dismantled. Yes I'm talking about the Rothschilds. " Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws.". Meyer Rothschild

Of course people with this much wealth could easily re-corrupt any uncorrupted system that we achieve. It's happened 8 times already in the USA, thats why their network of wealth needs to be taken down. A lot of nice side effects like the downfall of Rupert Murdoch and his media empire will be much appreciated by many I'm sure.

Fuck it, I've changed my mind what I'm describing is gonna have to be a revolution or it will never occur. And it needs to happen in the next 8 years or we'll be fucked for good.

 

[butchersapron]

Jews?

 

[Ryazan]

My girlfriend's Grandfather was a Belarussian Yid. Fought against the Nazis. Evil man.

 

[butchersapron]

So?

 

[LLETSA]

First of all, Hi everyone, I'm bamboo

I don't think a major revolution of economic/social ideology will occur any time soon in this country, but a series of quite major reforms do need to take place, obviously, and they may well end up being mini revolutions, depending on how they occur.

Pintle mentioned the lack of a common direction amongst dissenters. I think we can address this by talking less about ideology and more about things that need to be fixed in our current ideology of capitalism. in other words forget left - right, assume that we are all capitalists and reform it so it is actually a proper system, then if that doesn't work major revolution will become a viable solution.

I'm talking mainly of monetary reform, getting control of our currency back in the hands of the people and out of control of the international banking institutions (which only work for the increase of their profits, and constantly fuck with our economy to increase their profits) and to outlaw currency speculation and usury (like it was in the good old days of canon rule). It kind of works for south korea (according to chomsky anyway). I think that these are issues, when fully understood, should be acceptable to people on both sides of the coin, the only people it is unacceptable are the minority of the seriously wealthy (basically anyone who has made all their money in banking and currency trading).

If we can reform the system in a way so that people can actually trust politicians to be working in their interest (removing private funding and special interest groups) we will stand a much better chance of coming to a peaceful consensus with a britain we can all be happy with.

Unfortunately, on a darker side there definately are some people that will have to be either imprisoned or exiled (or in my opinion brutally tortured and put to death slowly) with their fortunes dismantled. Yes I'm talking about the Rothschilds. " Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws.". Meyer Rothschild

Of course people with this much wealth could easily re-corrupt any uncorrupted system that we achieve. It's happened 8 times already in the USA, thats why their network of wealth needs to be taken down. A lot of nice side effects like the downfall of Rupert Murdoch and his media empire will be much appreciated by many I'm sure.

Fuck it, I've changed my mind what I'm describing is gonna have to be a revolution or it will never occur. And it needs to happen in the next 8 years or we'll be fucked for good.

This ones got a thing about the number eight it seems.

There's nothing like a thread with 'revolution' in the title to attract the nutters. And I don't mean just the fascists.

 

[Ryazan]

So?

Why mention Jews?

 

[LLETSA]

My girlfriend's Grandfather was a Belarussian Yid. Fought against the Nazis. Evil man.

And the trolls.