Revolutionary
Humanism

Book Home

Revolution

Within the anti-capitalist movement, the term ‘revolution’ is often used very loosely and it is frequently used to portray a single violent political act. In reality, apart from coups within ruling strata (often called 'palace’ revolutions), actual revolutions involve a complex economic, social and political process. This kind of thorough-going revolution is not consciously made, it does not occur because a lot of activists get together and decide to have one. Such revolutionary developments are themselves part of a wider (and longer) process of socio-economic decay and contradiction. In terms of the revolutionary-humanist post-capitalist perspective to make ‘another world possible’ a wide ranging economic, social and political anti-capitalist revolution is undoubtedly necessary. It is necessary for two basic reasons. Firstly, the present socio-economic system supports a global system of exploitation, oppression, injustice and ecological devastation, which creates misery and hardship for millions of people. A different system of producing goods and services is clearly needed. Secondly, the class which owns and controls the main forms of wealth and productive capacity will not voluntarily give up their privileged position, nor cease (or permanently reform) their rapacious activities in exploiting the people and resources of the planet. However, the fact that a revolution is needed, doesn’t mean one will automatically happen. Such a revolution cannot be legislated for, nor wished away, because it emerges not from the conspiracy of a few or even many individuals, but from the interplay of deeply rooted contradictions and changes at work in oppressive societies.

Previous revolutions, such as the English Revolution of 1641and the French Revolution of 1789, which caused the decisive overthrow of feudal economic and political relations, only occurred after long gestation and considerable development of capitalistic forms of economic activity within the framework of their respective feudal systems. These revolutionary crises came as a result of long maturing and unresolved contradictions, together with splits between the rising capitalist elite and the aristocratic elite in power. What began initially as struggle for and against reforms, by the respective elites, turned by degrees into revolutionary struggle for political power and complete economic control. Socio-economic revolution can occur in no other way. This is because in long established hierarchical societies, vast quantities of wealth and power are concentrated in relatively few hands. It therefore requires a large but subordinate class to oppose the system, a severe crisis of the system, and substantial splits in the ruling strata, before discontent becomes transformed into revolutionary possibilities. Elite holders of wealth employ specially trained armed forces to control, suppress and even destroy any individuals or groups who seriously threaten their rule. In modern societies this wealth also allows them to control the main means of information dissemination and ideas, so that ideas of social and economic revolution are depicted as entirely negative. The American Revolution of 1775 and the Russian Revolution of 1917 were different in many ways, however, they both shared a general rule with the English and French revolutions. They became possible when there was not only considerable discontent, but when a section of the ruling elite, after pressing for reforms and failing to gain them, split away from the ruling group and weakened it sufficiently. For a revolution to occur, therefore, there have to be the following conditions or criteria:

1. widespread and deep dissatisfaction among major and significant sections of the population;
2. the potential for collective action against the causes of dissatisfaction;
3. the actual development of collective action and the establishment of co-ordinating mechanisms;
4. the general dissatisfaction needs to be reflected in and seriously split sections of the ruling strata; and
5. sufficient armed/military strength needs to be recruited to challenge or neutralise the oppressors.

However, for a successful anti-capitalist revolution that doesn’t turn into a Stalinist post-capitalist nightmare, a few more conditions are also necessary:

1. the anti-capitalist forces need always to choose their own revocable spokespersons and facilitators;
2. the oppressors’ political and military structures need to be dismantled completely;
3. the new socio-economic system needs to be economically and ecologically sustainable;
4. decisions on production and surplus production need to remain with the community of producers; and
5. planning and co-ordination needs to be based upon community-across and bottom-up models.

A detailed study of the Russian anti-capitalist revolution and its aftermath will reveal that although the first five conditions occurred, the last five conditions were not introduced and indeed were not seen as essential by the leadership of that particular anti-capitalist revolution. This was true even before the ascendance of Stalin. This resulted in a successful anti-capitalist revolution in Russia, but an abysmal failure in constructing a successful post-capitalist society for the majority of peasants and workers who lived there.

It can be seen from the above that the first two criteria have been around for a considerable time. However, although there are many signs of socio-economic contradiction and decay throughout the capitalist world, we have hardly witnessed the third for anything more than single issue campaigns such as Vietnam, Poll Tax, and the invasion of Iraq. The more recent exception to this is the development of the World Social Forum, a contested space, but which holds great promise. There are also small indications of dissatisfaction (criterion 3) within sections of the ruling strata, but nothing serious enough to split them or weaken them. Yet there is always the possibility of a sudden financial or ecological crisis accelerating the present decay.