Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Revolutionary conditions

You do not — you cannot — have a revolution just because you think it's a good idea. You do not and cannot have a revolution just because you have moral qualms — however deep and well-justified by humanist principles — about the existing system. A revolution can occur only when the existing system actually fails... and fails of its own accord.

So long as the capitalist-imperialist system is managing to do a "good" job, so long as the empire is run relatively efficiently (albeit immorally), the system has little to fear from revolution. Millions of people have to be desperately unhappy with the system itself before a revolution is even possible.

I'm a revolutionary not just because I want a revolution (which I do), and not just because I'm morally outraged by the crimes of the existing capitalist-imperialist system (which I am), but because I believe the existing system will collapse, and it will collapse because of its own internal contradictions*.

*This is not "inevitablism": I don't think it's inevitable that a good socialist system will inevitably emerge from the collapse of capitalism.

It's very important to understand the distinction between sabotage and refusing to do whatever it takes to shore up a collapsing system. Sabotage is bad*; if the system is to fall, it should fall of its own accord. If revolutionaries try to sabotage the system, if they try use violence to create revolutionary conditions, then the people will justly blame the revolutionaries — not the system itself — for whatever failures ensue. And, of course, those running the existing capitalist system can and will successfully defend themselves, winning on both practical and moral grounds.

*The Western capitalist-imperialist countries spent trillions of dollars over decades to actively sabotage socialism and communism. The "elite" characters of Atlas Shrugged do not merely go on strike and refuse to support a system they disagreed with: they actively sabotage the economy, even going so far as to bomb factories.

But refusing to sabotage the system does not mean doing whatever it takes to shore up the system. There are active steps a revolutionary can take bring about revolutionary conditions without being seen (by too many people*) as active saboteurs.

*There are always those who will see anything less than slavish adherence to the status quo as treason and sabotage. The only difference between the Americian bourgeois right and bourgeois "left" is that the right is better at the narrative of submission vs. treason.

There are two main avenues to create revolutionary conditions.

First, revolutionaries must constantly expose the crimes and failures of the existing system and tie those crimes and failures to the underlying principles of the system. Racism, sexism, theocracy, wars of aggression, the oppression of immigrants, economic depression: all of these crimes and failures either have their roots directly in capitalism, or capitalism by its nature will exploit these conditions to the benefit of the bourgeoisie.

Second, revolutionaries must constantly demand full social justice: full employment, adequate food, housing and other necessities for everyone, universal medical care, universal education, etc.

It's important that revolutionaries never compromise. I don't oppose S-CHIP to cover some medical care for some children, but I will not shut up about universal medical care for everyone just to get S-CHIP. I'm pleased that a black man will soon be President, but I'm not going to shut up about the racism that's still prevalent. I don't want women and minorities arbitrarily excluded from the bourgeoisie, but merely granting equal access to the bourgeoisie is not sufficient to end sexism and racism, and definitely not sufficient to end the relations of exploitation inherent in capitalism.

As a corollary, revolutionaries must always support issues, not individual politicians. A politician must compromise, that's their job. Too many progressives, I think, get sucked into supporting individual politicians (cough Obama); they then feel compelled to justify and support those politicians' compromises, instead of continuing to demand more.

Anyone who has been paying attention for the last forty years realizes that the expedient tactic of remaining silent on larger issues to win gains on smaller issues has utterly failed. Time and again it's been one step forward, twenty steps back.

Someone has to demand the whole cake. So long as compromise is viable, revolutionaries who refuse to compromise will be marginalized. But so what? My aim is not to find a position of power within the current system. My aim is to demand perfection, so that conditions will continuously improve, one way or another.

If I'm right, if the system really is doomed to fail of its own accord, then I'm right not to compromise, I'm right to prepare for a revolution to bring about something better from the failures of the system. And if I'm wrong, if the system really can keep working, I'm still right not to compromise: I'm demanding nothing but justice: if capitalism actually can deliver justice, it will do so only because someone demands it.


  1. Well said. I'm right there with ya.

  2. hello what a great blogger you have. Your education is perfect and impecable. Keep writting great posts. We need to wake up americans. US citizens are too libertarians, too pro free markets. People in this country are still finding escapes thru the markets like garage sales, etc. which are dead end really, and not way out of this horrible situation of death, agony, poverty and wars.


  3. You know i often go to which is a good blogger denouncing, and critisizing US and Zionist Imperialism and US government's corruptions. But the problem is that it's not a leftist site. It's more of a conspiracy-theory, libertarian, free-market site that appeals to many of the Ron Paul' followers.

  4. The problem i see is that the same people who critisize Israelis crimes against Palestinians are becoming just like Israelis. What we need is love, not hate.


    I was debating with a couple of white-nationalists, conspiracy theorists in and they were saying that Marx, Lenin and most social uprisings were/are funded by global-bankers. they hate jews.

    Most white-nationalist, right-wing, conspiracy-theoristshs think that *all* jewish citizens have a plot to take the whole world, i am anti-zionism and pro-jew, unlike libertarian conspiracy theorists who fall into the racism camp

    They think Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, North Korea's government, and other state-socialist governments in this world are funded by evil bankers.

    But we must be more specific when judging reality, as bad as the current state-welfare-socialist governments of today are, i don't think that they are funded by Illuminati Jewish Bankers.

    At best, the sector that could fund a Social-Democrat or leftist party in today's world politics is the national, local bourgeoise of those countries.

    However, non-leftist parties are also funded by bourgeoise sector, and the more traditional non-left wing parties like The Democrats and Republicans are *really* funded by Jewish Bankers and Big Money. Because politics itself is expensive, and requires a lot of money wether left, centrist or right wing parties.

    However there is no *proof* that the best and non-corrupt leftist leaders of history and today are/were backed by Global-Elites and by Big Money.



    Hello my great friends: I would like to know the sources, the links with scientific, verificationist proofs that state that Marx, Lenin, Trotsky were funded by Rockefellers, and global-elites.

    Just as Republican Party voters and Israel's government's loyal supporters, many people in this blogspot are deluded, mind manipulated and are not thinking objective but emotionally. And that's the problem in this world. The problem is truth vs. deceptions, beliefs, and convictions.

    And the scientific-truth is that Marx, Lenin, Trotsky were not funded by Jewish bankers, by Wall Street and by capitalists.

    They were a complete negation of bankers, and elitists.

    I don't really know where the white-nationalists, anti-semites, Jeff Rense, David Icke and David Duke's fans and followers get their idea that Marx, Lenin, Chavez, Castro and all social-revolutions, social uprisins, and coups are funded by evil jewish bankers.

    I would like to know the sources for that, instead of insulting me, show me the sources, so i could quit being a marxist.

    Because if i find out that Marx, Lenin and Trotsky were evil and were working for Global Elites of the late 1800s and early 1900s and that Socialist Ideology is a hoax, and farse, I would be the first one to quit being a socialist.


  6. God this is such a great blog. I can't believe I've never found it before. Thanks for writing.


Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.