When was the revolutionary wave?

For once, I agree more with Alf here, and disagree with John & Ed on the other thread. It seems a little odd to separate 1905 from 1917 if one wants to understand 1917-21, when 1905 did seem to usher in the whole era. To go for 1917-21 is to fixate too much around Russian events and 'great moments of history', in a variation of the bourgeois 'great men of history'. It's better to emphasise the developing process rather than the isolated high points. I'd suggest;
1905-27- for reasons prev. discussed on other thread - inc. pre-1917- Russia 1905 , formation of IWW 1905, Mexican revolution 1910, Dublin 1913-16.
1934-45 - Asturias revolt, a prelude to Spanish events 1936-7 which presage WWII. Plus internationalist resistance during WWII.
1953-59 - Czech, Polish revolts, Hungary 56, Cuban revolution 1959.
Bit tricky here cos Hungary was very influential on formation of 60s libertarian left (ie, mass defections from CPs ultimately leading to formation of Solidarity etc) so a case for 56 being start of 60s-70s wave.
1960s-85 - May 68, Italy, Winter of Discontent etc up to defeat of Miners Strike.
1990-present; er, Poll Tax and lots of defeats. One could argue about the Zapatistas.
There'll always be disputed grey areas....

I agree with this(although I'm not sure it's a great title for the feature).

Also 1934 was also the aborted insurrection in Portugal, It's mentioned in the Phil Mailer book, but apart from that brief mention I've not seen much on it. I think the 1928-3x peasant and workers revolts against the first and second five year plans need to be added to this as well - although there's very little information they seem on a pretty big scale. All of this defensive following the reaction after the failure of the first wave.

After the war,Renault, Ruhr, then the US coal strikes (the ones Dunayevska wrote about) and Japan Miike strike (also coal, plus others afaik) in about 1950, British housing occupations from '45/'46. Not on a big scale but I'd like to see what else was going on alongside these.

'60s starting in '56 (and the '70s starting in '68-69) seems sensible enough.

Huh i think theres a pretty big diffrence between the events of 1905 and the wave of upheaval around and following WW1, since they had different scales, a world war unfloding in the back drop and most importantly different organisational forms. In the same way the year of revolutions in 1848 can be marked out as being a world apart from the paris commune.

Except the soviets and factory committees (kinda) were thrown up in 1905, to resurface around February 1917. The Russo-Japanese war also led to the Hibiya riots (not much class content) - which began the Era of Popular Violence upto the rice riots 1918 (loads of class content), with some big strikes in 1912-1914 as well. PLenty of other countries also had quite a long run-up with insurrections put down, repression etc. before the big events got played out.

The IWW was pretty much done for by 1917, same with some other events already mentioned. I don't think anyone's claiming it's on the same scale, but there was a continuity - and an international one, between 1905 and 1917 seen in both the spread of mass strikes and insurrections, and the growth of working class organisations. So to understand what happened towards the end of WWI, it's necessary to look at the foundations laid beforehand. 1926-27 were much smaller as well, but I think we can safely say it was part of the same series of events.

no but there was equivalent industrial struggles in plenty of places around the world (including Belfast) and they don't get included because it didn't end up in a retarded blood sacrifice.

I mean if Dublin can get included for between 1913 and 1916 then surely Belfast must be in it, not to metnion the Dockers Strike of 1907 that saw a police mutiny as well.

to be honest i'm wary of this bollox of trying to fit things into this 'revolutionary wave' in the first place, afterall the closest the Uk has ever got to modern revolution was in 1926.

yeah that's kind of my point the only reaosn it gets heard of an alligned with the 'revolutionary wave' is cause lots of daft socialists imagined it was some revolutionary insurrection by the working class, in truth 1916 had more in line with a long legacy of failed nationalist uprisings that had swept through modern Europe.

Organise! (of old ie IWA) i'm sure have had articles about the Dockers Strike (i'm pretty sure of it), but there plenty of histories of it by various sources.

That's not why I mentioned it - I don't wanna derail this thread into a debate on Irish history, but I think the road from the 1913 lockout to the ICA to Easter, the dynamic between class struggle/nationalism is interesting and instructive. Partly, to see why it wasn't a "revolutionary insurrection by the working class".

double post

WSM article on 1907 strike at http://www.wsm.ie/story/2886

Longer analysis of class struggle in the north in the 1886-1922 period at http://www.wsm.ie/story/2363

Well, I think the answer is to call it 1917-1921, but then include events from 1905 to 1927 (and mention the Spanish Civil War as the definitive close).

Either that, or call it just "revolutionary wave" - and find something else to call features about the late '50s, late '60s etc. - which might be better anyway.

The library and history articles need reorganising so that the library becomes easier to navigate. So periodising seems the sensible way to do it, if not perfect. But if stuff is to be included from 1905-27 it makes more sense to call it 'revolutionary wave 1905-1927'. Later on the period(s) prior to 1905 might get done and it could get messy if 1905-17 is in a kind of limbo, neither here nor there.

But I think what is to be included in the 'revolutionary wave' tag/category needs to be defined. Is it any topical text/historical account written in that period, does it include all significant political events or what? (See what happened when I mentioned Dublin 1913-16.)

I think the soviet of 1905 is a pretty isolated example, and it seems to me that the role of the petrograd soviet was a it over emphasised by the bolsheviks and the rest of the russian social democrats to play up their role in the events of 1905. Indeed by the end of the struggle the petrograd soviet was little more than trotsky and a bunch of leftist intellectuals sitting down making decrees on their own and opposing strike action I think its importnat to point out that the revolutionary wave of 1914 onwards was not a series of isolated events, these were internationally linked movements where hundreds of thousands of people beleived they were bringing about a new society on a global scale and most importantly they belived they'd see it in their lifetime. Its not really comparable to the smaller riots and uprisings that had gone before in my opinion nor cqan it be compared to the mass social democratic parties. Its not simply a 'matter of scale'', since the global scale of the revolutions from 1917 onwards gave them and entirely different character. Well that'd be my opinon on it anyways.