💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › andrew-flood-modern-revolutions.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:56:51. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Modern Revolutions Author: Andrew Flood Date: 14 April 1996 Language: en Topics: revolution Source: Retrieved on 11th December 2021 from http://www.wsm.ie/content/modern-revolutions-or-revolution-still-possible Notes: This is from a talk given to a WSM meeting in 1996.
It was originally my intention to give a history lesson on the modern
revolutions, with the aim of extracting what they had in common.
Actually this is too big of a project, these events can not be dealt
with adequately on their own in the space of 20 minutes, lump them
together and you would lose everything.
What are these modern revolutions? Well in the 80’s it became popular on
a large part of the left to proclaim the death of the working class. Not
so much from the obviously flawed position of saying nobody worked
anymore, or even that modern society was no longer based around the
division between wage labour and capital. No rather on the basis that
the working class no longer existed as a class, ie a group of people
with common interests.ts an idea that was accepted by even a large part
of the revolutionary left. Core periphery theory, the underclass, all
these represent the idea that working class has fragmented into many
different groups. Two things were held to have caused this, on one hand
the increase in consumer goods available to workers, which generated the
idea that we are all middle class now, and on the other the small rump
that did not benefit from this increase, the underclass of permanent
unemployed, unskilled and low waged. Its an idea that became popular in
general culture as well as exemplified by films like slackers and the
endless generation ‘X’ books.
To an extent it raises a legitimate question. Were revolutions not based
around semi-skilled workers living and working together in appalling
conditions. An image perhaps best emphasised by the traditional mining
communities of England, where workers ate, played and died together.
Today with the fracture of the working class into smaller workplaces,
mostly due to automation, the division of the old communities into
suburbs, the advent of mass transport which meant even those in the
suburbs no longer worked together, the move into white collar and
skilled jobs, the advent of mass entertainment , have these things
destroyed the working class as a political force. Do these things mean
the revolutionary potential of those who work is dead, that there common
interests have been eroded and destroyed, in short that the revolution
although desirable is now utopian.
These are not new ideas, in fact they first appeared throughout academic
marxism and George Woodcock in the mid sixties. The massive boom of the
post war years and the real improvement in living standards brought many
academics to the conclusion that revolution was dead. In his foreword to
Anarchism, published in 1967 George Woodcock described it as a set of
interesting historic ideas belonging to a movement that had died in
Spain at the end of the 30’s. Indeed this and perhaps the upheavals in
Greece, Yugoslavia and Italy that were to end the 40’s were what could
be called the old European revolutions.
Of course tonight we have the advantage of hindsight and can see that
Woodcock was writing off revolution and anarchism on the eve a
revolutionary wave that was to sweep right around the world. One that
had already appeared in the United States around the struggle for Civil
rights and one that in hindsight the indications could be seen going
back to 66. The point being that not only Woodcock but also the left as
a whole was unprepared for these events and to a large part unable to
intervene. Its perhaps fitting that where we are now sitting, in the mid
90’s in what appears to be the darkest part of the century for
revolutionary socialism we are aware of how quickly things can change.
This is the significance of the modern revolutions, most particularly
the events of 1968 in France but also the revolution of 1974–76 in
Portugal, the events of the late 60’s and early 70’s in the US, Germany,
Italy and even Ireland in 1969. Perhaps we should also add Poland of
1981 to this list and the Eastern European upheavals at the end of the
80’s. In short revolutions occurring in modern countries where the
working class had been transformed. Revolutions that not only
demonstrated the continuing revolutionary potential of the working class
but also the inability of the left to intersect and build on this
potential.
This is an important point to take. The real tragedy is likely not so
much that there will be no future revolutionary upheavals but rather
that anarchism will be too weak to direct these upheavals away from
reformism and Leninism and into a struggle for a new world. Our
understanding is that for a revolution to be successful the mass of
people must know not only what they are fighting against, but more
importantly what they are fighting for. At the moment in Ireland we are
incapable of even beginning to raise consciousness to that sort of
level.
Why did the old left miss out on the upheavals of the 60’s. Particularly
in France the existing organisations were unable to capitalise on the
crisis. The communist party became the leadership purely by default,
what it was saying was crap but it had control of the unions and a
reputation as being militant. The anarchists of the 22^(nd) March
movement grew but as a student body, they had no time to develop the
experience they needed or to set down roots in the working class.
Effectively they played the role of initiator and then were forced to
tail the CP, criticising its every move but as yet unable to win away
its support.
This was a pattern true everywhere in the 60’s. The old organisations
proved unable to adjust and failed to gain significant support, a new
left grew which in fact was not all that new at all but combined a hodge
podge of ideologies with aspects of youth culture. Ultimately these
organisations went into decline, their leaders into academia, or into
dead end armed struggle. In the end they all lacked the immediate
organisation and skill to push revolution forward, and were unable to
develop this after the wave had succeeded.
In Portugal the picture is even more alarming. The Portuguese revolution
flowed out of a left wing military coup and saw the take-over of both
land and factories. It lasted two years 1974–76 before the return to
normality occurred. In this two years the far left squabbled endlessly
over who was the real vanguard, there were over 20 groups claiming the
title. The disruption this caused froze the revolution and thanks to US
aid to the social democrats along with military threats undermined it
base. There was no bloody counter revolution however, the far left
simply evaporated.
In effect then the modern revolutions tell us three things
forward, otherwise it may just wither or be diverted into reformism.
potential into revolution. For a variety of reasons it may fail to
intersect the revolutionary movement and so become a passive spectator.
Revolutions like those in Russia and Spain matured over many years, of
conflict between workers and boss. These conditions allowed the growth
of revolutionary organisations, Marxist ones like the Bolsheviks and
Socialist revolutionaries and anarchist ones like the Spanish CNT. At
the time of revolutionary opportunity they had tens of thousands or
hundreds of thousands of members and because of this a massive influence
in the direction the revolution took.
The modern revolutions took a different form, they appeared rapidly,
instantly at the time, even with hindsight developing over months. They
arose after periods of low class struggle, and collaboration between the
opposition and government. This collaboration took many different forms
but a modern equivalent is the PCW, accepted yesterday by ICTU. This
lack of struggle in the run up meant that the left was very much smaller
and that it had got used to talking to itself and not identifying the
issues in the class.
The left expected these upheavals to follow pre-set patterns and put
‘the left’ into the leadership because of its long experience. Life of
course does not work like that, the ideas of the existing left were
judged out moded and rejected, it for the most part failed to recognise
the importance of specific events
How possible is revolution today. Well in the English speaking world,
which is where we draw the vast bulk of our news from it looks very
distant. Its a long time since we’ve seen a significant victory
anywhere. In Europe however its clear that we are entering a new phase
of struggle, the riots in France of the last few days and the general
strikes in several countries over the past couple of years suggest times
are not so dim.
To a large part the current gloom is a side effect of two good things,
one the collapse of labourism, the idea of social partnership as
something with mass support among left activists. We may have the PCW
here but its not because the left feels this will bring about socialism,
its because those who support it see no other choice. The second is the
collapse of the USSR and the overthrowal of the CP’s throughout Eastern
Europe. Both these things were good, they removed dead ends from
appearing a s alternatives.
However because right up to the collapse of both Labourism in the mid
80’s and the USSR at the end of the 80’s the bulk of activists had
looked to one or other (or even both) of these systems as being what
socialism is about their collapse had a massive demoralising effect.
This saw large numbers slowly drop out of oppositional politics. This
smaller pool in turn has had no effect on those who like ourselves never
looked to either of these systems. We find ourselves exposed and
abandoned, too weak as yet to make an impact. So although their are
opportunities as never before there are also problems.
The late 80’s and early 90’s have also seen an incredible international
crisis of capitalism. In many countries this has taken an economic from,
with prolonged recession. In all countries it has taken a political form
with government scandals, what’s called incompetent government and most
sinisterly the growth of the far right. Where as the 80’s were a period
of triumph for capitalism, a triumph that became rooted in popular
culture as evidenced by Loadsamoney the 90’s are a period where that
triumph has collapsed. Thatcherism had an exciting dynamism for the
right, Major is presented as an incompetent bore. In effect though he is
no different, it is the times that have changed.
This is the reason the SWP has decided Britain is on the brink of a
revolution, the crisis of capitalism. And by brink they do mean brink,
last year after the miners marches Tony Cliff said in International
Socialism that if the SWP had twice its membership they could have
marched on parliament and forced the government out of power. Leninism
at its most rampant, there are two needs for the revolution, the
objective crisis of capitalism and the subjective revolutionary party.
In Britain and by default here they are saying the first exists and the
second is almost there, their rally on Friday will no doubt repeat this
message.
As I’ve already said however the lesson to draw from the modern
revolutions is that it is the subjective experience of the working class
that matters. The test of the organisation is its ability to intersect
that experience, most of you here will have some idea of how badly the
SWM does that here today and what’s more they are driving out their
middle membership. Marketing was always one of their strongest features
so maybe they’ll yet get it together.
So are we on the brink of a revolution. In Britain and Ireland the
answer would seem to be definitely no. Although people have no
confidence in the government and the political system there is no
alternative to it seen. The acceptance of the PCW yesterday is an
example of this in action. Sure people think the current system is crap
but for an upheaval they also need to have an idea of an alternative
system and a idea of how to get there. There is no evidence that this
exists and it is this that will make revolution.
The other lesson I’m trying to draw out however is that we need to be
careful about this conclusion. The speed at which ideas now flow,
exemplified perhaps by the speed of the reaction to the Chiapas
rebellion in Mexico make change very likely to be quick. In the 60’s
event in the US and France played a part in inspiring event in Ireland.
A couple of truly significant victories internationally could change the
mood here almost overnight. In this sense there is enormous opportunity
ahead.
Having said this we are in a weak position to take advantage of it.
Unless anarchist ideas are dominant it is likely a revolution will be
turned down the dead ends of reformism or re-vamped Leninism. In Ireland
it could well be republicanism. But we do not have the numbers to assert
that dominance. That is why we need to take growth very seriously
anarchists cannot afford to remain as tiny propaganda groups we must
grow to organisations of thousands and tens of thousands. We must make
much firmer links internationally and start a real debate within the
movement.
But in doing so we must retain our politics and our methods. One of the
strengths WSM has is that is has succeed in obtaining a relevance with a
specific audience around the Dublin based activists. Our experience as a
group demonstrates that it is possible for an organisation to retain
relevance to a section of the class that is involved in struggle.
Preserving this while growing is indeed a difficult task.
It is however what we must do. Our new perspectives reflect that of a
group which has realised what it takes to make a revolution and that
this requires going far beyond the tradition of the left in Ireland. We
may well face such an opportunity within a decade and it is likely that
we will do so without being completly prepared, particularly in being
far weaker on the ground than we need to be.
This means we and every left activists needs to be aware that every step
forward, every action we take on a day to day basis now has the
potential to make far reaching consequences. The work we put in and the
seriousness with which we take it could well determine the success of
failure of a revolution that is looming in the near future. It is a huge
burden, one that the left has tended to shy away from but it is also the
burden that gives the hours and pounds we put into political activity a
purpose. We must fasten our sights on that purpose and get down to work.
Right now it may seem an insupportable burden but the prize is the
greatest that could be wished for, the fulfilment of not only our dreams
but also all those who have fought this system over the last century. We
have a world to win. I’d recommend Dermots article on Paris ’68 we
published recently as an introduction to some of the ideas I’m talking
about here and also Phil Mailers book, “Portugal: The impossable
revolution?” which the bookservice sells.