DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Work in a post-revolutionary society

128 posts / 0 new
Last post
lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 10 2007 23:19

i've looked at it before. they say they don't like mc people sad
eat: strange. i mean, you can't list them as an alternative revolutionary stratgey, and then say that it doesn't matter that they are no better than anyone else.

like i say: you points are too difficult to separate out tbh.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 11 2007 07:34

i never listed them as an alternative explicit revolutionary strategy, i said they were an alternative strategy (one which is not dogmatically ground in the kind of hazy utopia been offered here and one that just gets out there and focusses on the real, here and now, day to day issues faced in working class communities without being bound by the dogmatic and intelectual baggage of 150 years of the past) which could perhaps offer a better base to work from in the future, a more pragmatic, realistic, and yes boring one than holding out all your hopes for a coordinated global revolution to magically catapult you all into your utopian ideal without having to worry too much about any of the actual detail about getting there

now i don't actually believe my politics is actually that much different to anyone else on this thread, it's just a difference in empahsis about the almost unbelieavable amount of ground work that's required in society before you have anything even like the foundation required to even begin to speak about things like coordinated global revolutions, maybe that's an age thing i don't know

not that i've got anything against hazy dreaming and thought expirments of what society should be like, it's all required

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 11 2007 08:03
oisleep wrote:
holding out all your hopes for a coordinated global revolution to magically catapult you all into your utopian ideal

whether you agree with catch and my assessments of the likelihood of struggles circulating or not, it's quite obvious neither of us are relying on "magic" or "co-ordinated global revolution," or for that matter pushing any utopian ideals. so don't be a dick.

oisleep wrote:
(one which is not dogmatically ground in the kind of hazy utopia been offered here and one that just gets out there and focusses on the real, here and now, day to day issues faced in working class communities without being bound by the dogmatic and intelectual baggage of 150 years of the past)

because a desire for a better world somehow prevents you being involved in day-to-day issues and struggles? confused

oisleep wrote:
it's just a difference in empahsis about the almost unbelieavable amount of ground work that's required in society before you have anything even like the foundation required to even begin to speak about things like coordinated global revolutions

but such groundwork and effort is required for a revolution of any kind anyway, the point i've been making is if we're putting it this effort it's not too hard to avoid parochialism and 'objective circumstances' or whatever which may trigger revolutionary events are unlikely to be confined to a single nation-state. so international revolutionary events seem as likely as a national one, which of course is very unlikely at the moment but as your scenario assumed a revolution, for all the reasons catch and i have discussed you can't just dismiss any international circulation as a belief in magic (you seemed to accept this by saying things have "just moved up a level" - exactly, the nation-state is not the operative unit for class struggles today).

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 11 2007 08:07
Quote:
i've merely commented on, what to me, seems a very unlikely situation arising

Both me and Joseph K. have pointed out that to prevent a full scale US assault you don't need a revolution going on there, just sufficient opposition from within the US public and the military. That happened in Vietnam, and to a much, much lesser extent it's been happening with Iraq. Either way the American public will not accept even a small number of casualties, and it's impossible for the US to sustain operations in more than a couple of (even very small) countries at the same time.

Quote:
holding out all your hopes for a coordinated global revolution to magically catapult you all into your utopian ideal without having to worry too much about any of the actual detail about getting there

oisleep, again, you're repeating the same stuff without backing any of it up. There's plenty on this board by people involved in both workplace and community organising on a day to day basis, as you well know. You also know I was involved for a good while, plenty of door-to-door etc., with an ex-IWCA group. Although I joined after the split, it was around the same time as the IWCA wasted a great deal of time and effort on the London mayoral and parliamentary elections. In that case 150 years of failure to gain any kind of success from an electoral strategy would've been one particular bit of baggage worth keeping around. Or do you think we should spend the next 150 years blindly repeating the same mistakes without learning anything from the past whatsoever?

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 11 2007 08:08
Quote:
don't be a dick.

and there we have it, question the dogma of the anarchist dream and it means you're being a dick (add that to cunt, tosser and picking fights)

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 11 2007 08:13
oisleep wrote:
Quote:
don't be a dick.

and there we have it, question the dogma of the anarchist dream and it means you're being a dick (add that to cunt, tosser and picking fights)

no i suggested you were being a dick by ignoring my materialist arguments for the likelihood of struggles circulating in favour of saying i believe in magic. way to not respond to any of my actual points though.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 11 2007 08:23
Quote:
so even with a worldwide revolution with all areas of the globe happy to supplly others with what they need, how would it all be transported when oil runs out?

I think that question can equally be asked of capitalism. However capitalism does a load of transport unnecessarily - 'local' vegetables in ASDA go up and down the country to central distribution depots even if produced within 50 miles of the supermarket you buy it from , not to mention cut salads being flown to Nigeria and back to be hand cut due to labour costs. Cut that kind of rubbish out, and shift staple produce locally, eliminate a lot of cash crops, and you're in much better stead.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 11 2007 08:25

joseph your essential point being made is 'you're not listening to me oisleep' which actually means anyone who doesn't agree with you is not listening to you

i could equally say that you & catch are not reponsing to my points, e.g catch raised a point about how close to self sufficiency the uk was, i responded with a series of points questioning his assumptions on that, not one of which was addressed or responded to as they were clearly inconveneint for the argument being offered

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 11 2007 08:33
oisleep wrote:
joseph your essential point being made is 'you're not listening to me oisleep' which actually means anyone who doesn't agree with you is not listening to you

i could equally say that you & catch are not reponsing to my points, e.g catch raised a point about how close to self sufficiency the uk was, i responded with a series of points questioning his assumptions on that, not one of which was addressed or responded to as they were clearly inconveneint for the argument being offered

but i spend a good while explaining why i think any revolution is likely to circulate internationally, and you accept the point ("things have just moved up a level") - and then later go back to asserting i believe in magic, am a dogmatic anarchist utopian etc for believing in "co-ordinated global revolution" - which i don't, which is obvious from my posts.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 11 2007 08:37
Quote:
it was around the same time as the IWCA wasted a great deal of time and effort on the London mayoral and parliamentary elections. In that case 150 years of failure to gain any kind of success from an electoral strategy would've been one particular bit of baggage worth keeping around.

well it's a debatable point, i can't say i was 100% behind that particular venture, although to categorise the whole of the IWCA's approach as an electoral strategy is somewhat missing the point, i'm not that dogmatic about these things, and i think anything is worth doing if it can push the idea of what the IWCA is about, i think it was fairly successful in doing that, obviously the success of that is not something that can really be measured and i'm fairly ambivelant either way on it to be honest as i don't really see that kind of thing as forming the core of the IWCA's approach. if they went down the route of putting more and more faith in such strategies and abandoning the approach they've taken so far then i'd see them less and less as an attractive approach, but i don't really think there are any signs of them doing such a thing, so their dabbling in elecotral politics is not something i see as undermining their root strategy, fair enough some people might just see the words elecotral politics and immediately write it off because their so clever and know that you can't change anything through a system that was set up to perpetuate those who set it up, which is fine, but i'm struggling to see much alternatives being offered by said people

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 11 2007 08:52
Joseph K. wrote:
oisleep wrote:
joseph your essential point being made is 'you're not listening to me oisleep' which actually means anyone who doesn't agree with you is not listening to you

i could equally say that you & catch are not reponsing to my points, e.g catch raised a point about how close to self sufficiency the uk was, i responded with a series of points questioning his assumptions on that, not one of which was addressed or responded to as they were clearly inconveneint for the argument being offered

but i spend a good while explaining why i think any revolution is likely to circulate internationally, and you accept the point ("things have just moved up a level") - and then later go back to asserting i believe in magic, am a dogmatic anarchist utopian etc for believing in "co-ordinated global revolution" - which i don't, which is obvious from my posts.

well sorry joseph but your the person whose asserting that it will be likely that a coordinated global revolution will occur

but you seem to be pushing the burdern of evidence back to me to explain why it wont

if someon offers up an outlandish proposal, don't you think the burden of evidence and convincing should lie with the person offereing it in such circumstances?

and my acceptance that 'things have moved up a level' is correct, yet you also conveniently missed out the other thing i said when i mentioned that which was 'although this hasn't changed the relative powers of both sides' so just because i accept that things have moved up a level, it doesn't mean that i accept the likelihood of a revolution happening, i mean levels of class struggle and awareness are nothing like what they were over the last 100 years and even then there was very little chance of anything happening in the libertarian fashion that all think is so inevetiable, and yes i can't ground all my ideas about the future in the past, but this all out hope for something happening to me doesn't seem to be grounded in any kind of objective reallity, we've all seen how capable capitalism has been of absorbing attacks on it in the past, most of which have easily been absorbed, repackaged and sold back to us and it shows no sign of beingn weakened by any of the more contemporary attacks on it, now as i said previously i don't doubt the challenge that it will face when the oil crisis kicks in and any environmental crises that could be around the corner, but this in no way leads to any assurance that some liberarian communism will arise out of the flames of such crises, capitallism may well disappear but it may well in fact take the seeds of communism with it

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 11 2007 09:12
oisleep wrote:
well sorry joseph but your the person whose asserting that it will be likely that a coordinated global revolution will occur

where did i say this? i've simply said that on account of the more global nature of capitalism and communications today a revolutionary upsurge is unlikely to be confined to one country. you agreed, saying things have "just moved up a level" - which was my point. i haven't said anything about co-ordination as in deliberate planning (though there's no reason any organising we do should be confined to national borders), i haven't talked about "global revolution," only sufficient support in other countries (i.e. the US) to make intervention difficult, and i certainly haven't said this is at all likely, only it's as likely as revolution in one country - a premise of your 'what if scenario' we were discussing.

oisleep wrote:
yet you also conveniently missed out the other thing i said when i mentioned that which was 'although this hasn't changed the relative powers of both sides' so just because i accept that things have moved up a level, it doesn't mean that i accept the likelihood of a revolution happening

'revolution in one country' was your scenario mate confused against your point on the dangers of US intervention i was simply saying it's likely in such a situation that there would be sufficient support for the revolution in the US to make overt intervention difficult or impossible.

oisleep wrote:
but this all out hope for something happening to me doesn't seem to be grounded in any kind of objective reallity, we've all seen how capable capitalism has been of absorbing attacks on it in the past, most of which have easily been absorbed, repackaged and sold back to us and it shows no sign of beingn weakened by any of the more contemporary attacks on it

where are you going with those goalposts! you set out a scenario of 'revolution in one country' to which you demanded responses on pain of utopian irrelevance (not an unfair point), then when people respond you go 'ha ha! my scenario's never going to happen, suckazz!111'

so are you now arguing chances of libertarian revolution look pretty slim at the moment? i think that's pretty uncontroversial

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 11 2007 09:23
Quote:
so even with a worldwide revolution with all areas of the globe happy to supplly others with what they need, how would it all be transported when oil runs out?

I think that question can equally be asked of capitalism. However capitalism does a load of transport unnecessarily - 'local' vegetables in ASDA go up and down the country to central distribution depots even if produced within 50 miles of the supermarket you buy it from , not to mention cut salads being flown to Nigeria and back to be hand cut due to labour costs. Cut that kind of rubbish out, and shift staple produce locally, eliminate a lot of cash crops, and you're in much better stead.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 11 2007 09:26
oisleep wrote:
i could equally say that you & catch are not reponsing to my points, e.g catch raised a point about how close to self sufficiency the uk was, i responded with a series of points questioning his assumptions on that, not one of which was addressed or responded to as they were clearly inconveneint for the argument being offered

No, I was out all day yesterday and just cross-posted on one of those before I saw this. What I didn't do was repeat "pie in the sky, faith, magic" for several posts in reply to your points.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 11 2007 09:34
oisleep wrote:
Quote:
it was around the same time as the IWCA wasted a great deal of time and effort on the London mayoral and parliamentary elections. In that case 150 years of failure to gain any kind of success from an electoral strategy would've been one particular bit of baggage worth keeping around.

well it's a debatable point, i can't say i was 100% behind that particular venture, although to categorise the whole of the IWCA's approach as an electoral strategy is somewhat missing the point,

I didn't say that at all. I said they'd shifted emphasis when they did that, which is true. I was also involved with HI up until about 2-3 months before the local elections in Hackney, and think that was a waste of time if not counterproductive as well. I was one of the people at the time arguing against knee-jerk 'elections are evil' by some people who don't really even know why they think that (see the anarchism and elections thread), whilst still being very much opposed to it. I don't think it requires dogma to see £20k wasted as being a problem.

Quote:
i'm struggling to see much alternatives being offered by said people

Then you aren't looking hard enough. Since I stopped posting on urban/mwatb I've heard precisely zero about the IWCA, short of a couple of Red Action articles going into the library recently.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 11 2007 09:35
Quote:
so are you now arguing chances of libertarian revolution look pretty slim at the moment?

it's been my point all along joseph

my starting point was responding to the people who were talking about the utopioan ideal of having no forced work in a libertarian communist society, i merely voiced concerns about how one would hope to arrive at such a place

you may talk of moving goalposts, but it's a pretty big topic of discussion joseph and one which if you're not prepared to discuss all aspects of such a journey then i don't think you should be finger wagging at people who do

Quote:
revolution in one country' was your scenario mate

yes, as out of the possibilities of having any kind of revolution which would aim to achieve a libertarian communist society this appears to be the most likely (out of two very unlikely scenarios), so i started to discuss this one, and surely for a revolution to 'circulate' as you put it it has to start somewhere first, so i don't see why you think our starting scenories that we are both talking about are so different, or do you just think that everyone will just count down from ten one day and everything will go at exactly the same time? if not then i don't see on what basis you have to rule out my scenario of the revolution starting in one country being immediately quashed by others that said revolution had not yet 'circulated to'

and do remember throughout all of this discussion, it's being the 'during' stage that we've been talking about mainly

Quote:
i've simply said that on account of the more global nature of capitalism and communications today a revolutionary upsurge is unlikely to be confined to one country

i agree, however were jumping one step ahead here, i.e. step 1) a revolutionary upsurge occurs in one place, step 2) it spreads to somewhere else

all your arguments have been focussed on step 2, now step 2 can't happen without step 1, and like it or not, unless we all count down from ten as above, step 1 will happen in one location so the things i've been talking about are focussed on that eventuality, and even then it's assuming the conditions are in place to lead to step 1 happeniing at all, all of which i've doubted throughout these conditions

but i guess that's me moving the goalposts again, it's a big topic joesph, don't be surprised when it brings up biq and far reaching questions

anyway, i'm off out for the rest of the day, thanks for the discussions

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 11 2007 09:43
Quote:
step 1) a revolutionary upsurge occurs in one place, step 2) it spreads to somewhere else

Is out and out bollocks.

At any one time there are strikes, riots, all kinds of things going on around the world. During the CPE protests in France there were also massive school strikes in the US, and youth rights protestors blocking roads in Auckland NZ, stuff in Sweden as well etc. No co-ordination, no one after the other.

me too in terms of out.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 11 2007 09:59
oisleep wrote:
i agree, however were jumping one step ahead here, i.e. step 1) a revolutionary upsurge occurs in one place, step 2) it spreads to somewhere else

all your arguments have been focussed on step 2, now step 2 can't happen without step 1, and like it or not, unless we all count down from ten as above, step 1 will happen in one location so the things i've been talking about are focussed on that eventuality, and even then it's assuming the conditions are in place to lead to step 1 happeniing at all, all of which i've doubted throughout these conditions

i don't think i've only being addressing point 2 - a revolution (assuming the feasibility thereof for now) doesn't come from nothing, there's likely to be escalating unrest, strikes, riots and the like building up to 'the' revolution, during which time, especially if the proximate cause is say a global recession or something resulting in austerity measures being imposed, unrest is likely to be spreading to other places. nowhere did i say there would need to be a revolution in the US for one in the UK to succeed, simply that there would need to be sufficient sympathy amongst the working class there for our struggle to impede the interventions of the US state. for the above reason, and the fact that it's going to be a lot harder to demonise the population of the 'special relation' as opposed to a murderous dictator in a far off land half the country can't point to on a map, means i don't consider there to be this grand disjunction between step 1 and 2 - given the levels of opposition to iraq and vietnam i think the US would face substantial domestic problems deploying to crush the UK working class, especially as they're close to needing he draft already to deal with iraq and afghanistan - a revolutionary situation involving a greater population than those two combined would likely require it, and the resistance that goes with it.

i mean there's so many variables here it's a little meaningless, though worth thinking about i suppose.

as to the possibility of revolution per se, well obviously at the moment that seems a million miles away. i mean i don't know much about the IWCA, but i don't see how wanting a revolutionary change and thinking it's possible is juxtaposed to waging everyday struggles around our material conditions, indeed the latter is usually held up as the means to bring about the former, assuming prefigurative means etc. i don't think anyone's claiming there'll be communes in brighton or wherever tomorrow (though the repression thereof would help with our hippy problem grin).

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 11 2007 14:35
Quote:
it's just a difference in empahsis about the almost unbelieavable amount of ground work that's required in society before you have anything even like the foundation required to even begin to speak about things like coordinated global revolutions, maybe that's an age thing i don't know

it seems to me that in reality this is the only point you are trying to make: that you are better than the rest.

and it's not even made: you don't seem to be saying or doing anything different to anyone else, except being ruder to people with the the same politics.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 11 2007 16:35
Mike Harman wrote:
Quote:
step 1) a revolutionary upsurge occurs in one place, step 2) it spreads to somewhere else

Is out and out bollocks.

At any one time there are strikes, riots, all kinds of things going on around the world. During the CPE protests in France there were also massive school strikes in the US, and youth rights protestors blocking roads in Auckland NZ, stuff in Sweden as well etc. No co-ordination, no one after the other.

me too in terms of out.

oh big deal you get a strike or some kids refusing to go to school in a few countries at the same time, hardly the kind of rupture of existing society that this discussion is based on is it

and if you'd bothered to follow the thread, of the, er thread, you'd remember that what we were talking about was in relation to an actual 'revolution' having occurred in one country and the chances of it sustaining itself and defending itself against hostile forces, your assertion is that it wouldn't need to because everyone else would be experiencing revolutions as well, but if your now saying that a couple of strikes in another hostile state will turn the global capitalist community's attention away from doing what they could to revert back a revolution that had already begun to take shape, then fair enough, but it's not exactly a convincing proposition

i mean where is the historical precdences for this kind of thing being successful? how successful were the hungarian and bavarian soviets when they had their chance, or the german revolution? all this with a huge big country run by revolutionaries just next door, they still couldn't even be sustained yet your asking me to believe that a couple of strikes in a still soliidly capitalist state would cripple their chances of doing anything to revert it

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 11 2007 16:47
revol68 wrote:
oh oisleep i can't even be arsed working out your point now, your turning into that fuckwit LLETSA, if you think libertarian communism is impossible then just say so, don't fuck about asking questions and then refusing to engage with any answers given and then moving the goalposts all over the place.

eh? i've enaged over 8 pages of threads on the topic, if not falling into line and agreeing with the outlook and positions of some of the more dogmatic belivers in world revolution is not engaging, then fair enough, good luck on getting people to 'engage'

and i'd think it was pretty clear from my posts that i think libertarian communism is nigh on impossible in the current climate, a position i'd imagine which would constitute a heft majority amongst the population, now if your position on people who take such a view is that they just have to say they don't believe it's possible and we all have to stop discussion there, then you'r not exactly positioning yourselves that well to actually propogate the values & methods that you hold outside of your own wee ghettos. you seem to be holding the line that someone can only discuss these things with you (as in the anarchist movement) if they already have near on 100% belief in their ability to happen, a position which consigns you evern further into your self made ghetto

Quote:
I mean how do you see the IWCA doing anything more than Sol Fed or the AF? Except embracing reactionary parochialism in the form of pushing for a 'son's and daughter's' housing policy, arguing against funding for some orchestra thing on the basis that it's for the middle class and also opposing some pittance funding for some religious celebration.

that's uncanny, you've summed up everything they've ever done and everything they've ever held in those three points

i mean clearly it would be great if the IWCA could embrace the dizzy heights of picketing a starbucks cafe or finger wagging at striking workers on a picket for not immediately embracing their anti-id card campaign, but it's early days you know

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 11 2007 16:51
Joseph K. wrote:
oisleep wrote:
i agree, however were jumping one step ahead here, i.e. step 1) a revolutionary upsurge occurs in one place, step 2) it spreads to somewhere else

all your arguments have been focussed on step 2, now step 2 can't happen without step 1, and like it or not, unless we all count down from ten as above, step 1 will happen in one location so the things i've been talking about are focussed on that eventuality, and even then it's assuming the conditions are in place to lead to step 1 happeniing at all, all of which i've doubted throughout these conditions

i don't think i've only being addressing point 2 - a revolution (assuming the feasibility thereof for now) doesn't come from nothing, there's likely to be escalating unrest, strikes, riots and the like building up to 'the' revolution, during which time, especially if the proximate cause is say a global recession or something resulting in austerity measures being imposed, unrest is likely to be spreading to other places. nowhere did i say there would need to be a revolution in the US for one in the UK to succeed, simply that there would need to be sufficient sympathy amongst the working class there for our struggle to impede the interventions of the US state. for the above reason, and the fact that it's going to be a lot harder to demonise the population of the 'special relation' as opposed to a murderous dictator in a far off land half the country can't point to on a map, means i don't consider there to be this grand disjunction between step 1 and 2 - given the levels of opposition to iraq and vietnam i think the US would face substantial domestic problems deploying to crush the UK working class, especially as they're close to needing he draft already to deal with iraq and afghanistan - a revolutionary situation involving a greater population than those two combined would likely require it, and the resistance that goes with it.

i mean there's so many variables here it's a little meaningless, though worth thinking about i suppose.

as to the possibility of revolution per se, well obviously at the moment that seems a million miles away. i mean i don't know much about the IWCA, but i don't see how wanting a revolutionary change and thinking it's possible is juxtaposed to waging everyday struggles around our material conditions, indeed the latter is usually held up as the means to bring about the former, assuming prefigurative means etc. i don't think anyone's claiming there'll be communes in brighton or wherever tomorrow (though the repression thereof would help with our hippy problem grin).

fair enough, points taken

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 11 2007 16:56
lem wrote:
Quote:
it's just a difference in empahsis about the almost unbelieavable amount of ground work that's required in society before you have anything even like the foundation required to even begin to speak about things like coordinated global revolutions, maybe that's an age thing i don't know

it seems to me that in reality this is the only point you are trying to make: that you are better than the rest.

and it's not even made: you don't seem to be saying or doing anything different to anyone else, except being ruder to people with the the same politics.

true, my above post was possibly the rudest thing i've ever seen written on an internet message board

perhaps in situations like this if i just stuck to calling people, cunts, tossers, dicks and accusing them of picking fights and asking pointless questions it would help me be less rude, like youse lot

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 11 2007 17:52

sacrcasm is a form od rudeness

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 11 2007 18:46
oisleep wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
Quote:
step 1) a revolutionary upsurge occurs in one place, step 2) it spreads to somewhere else

Is out and out bollocks.

At any one time there are strikes, riots, all kinds of things going on around the world. During the CPE protests in France there were also massive school strikes in the US, and youth rights protestors blocking roads in Auckland NZ, stuff in Sweden as well etc. No co-ordination, no one after the other.

me too in terms of out.

oh big deal you get a strike or some kids refusing to go to school in a few countries at the same time, hardly the kind of rupture of existing society that this discussion is based on is it

Which'll be why I referenced 1917 and 1968 beforehand. The point is in all these cases it wasn't a domino effect, and it wasn't co-ordinated, various international conditions (and some specific local conditions - Japan 1918 was very different from Germany 1918) led to them happening all at the same time. 1917 and 1968 may not have been successful, but they definitely did rupture societies to various extents.

Quote:
and if you'd bothered to follow the thread, of the, er thread, you'd remember that what we were talking about was in relation to an actual 'revolution' having occurred in one country and the chances of it sustaining itself and defending itself against hostile forces, your assertion is that it wouldn't need to because everyone else would be experiencing revolutions as well, but if your now saying that a couple of strikes in another hostile state will turn the global capitalist community's attention away from doing what they could to revert back a revolution that had already begun to take shape, then fair enough, but it's not exactly a convincing proposition

And you've still not responded to the GI resistance vietnam, current mutiny and desertion in Iraq, or any of Joseph K.'s points on the same issue. All of which crippled (or is likely to with Iraq) the US army in situations far less serious than a full scale revolution in the UK.

Quote:
i mean where is the historical precdences for this kind of thing being successful? how successful were the hungarian and bavarian soviets when they had their chance, or the german revolution? all this with a huge big country run by revolutionaries just next door, they still couldn't even be sustained yet your asking me to believe that a couple of strikes in a still soliidly capitalist state would cripple their chances of doing anything to revert it

For a start, the US, UK, and most other publics won't accept anything near the casualties in wars overseas that they were prepared to put up with until 1945, or 1960 or even 1990. Again, address our points.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 11 2007 20:43
oisleep wrote:
(although most people would want at least the same amount of creature comforts and gadgets and stuff as they had pre-revolution so not really sure how all that would be provided, like anarchists most people aren't primitives so wouldn't be that happy not having smaller ipods every year erc..)

I think it'd be pretty easy to replace ipod technology with a wireless media device which selected any track (or even film) in existence from a centralised repository - without any copyright restrictions or competing companies this'd be an easy thing to set up.

Quote:
so say we have 15 million people previously employed in call centres and other non-socially necessary jobs, now at a guess i'd imagine most of these would be based in cities or built up areas, now putting aside the fact that these 15milllion may not even wish to go and work in agriculture or the other areas,

I reckon about 200,000 additional people working in industrial agriculture would massively reduce the working day (or 100,000 or 400,000). A lot of people like gardening anyway, doing that to produce food locally on a more organised basis would require zero commute, and also be less effort. Before you say anything about lack of space, there's loads and loads of back to back terraces with small gardens that people never use and are derelict/overgrown. I think block by block neighbourhoods could decide to knock them together and turn them into communal food-producing gardens in an emergency - if someone really wanted to keep their private that wouldn't be much of an issue either. Obviously this is just supplementing food supply, not replacing it.

Quote:
i didn't know that it was this high, that's interesting (although i see a change in methodology of measuring the figures seemed to bring about a massive leap in perceived self sufficiency, and even without that its' dropping quite rapidly over the last 20 years or so)

I didn't look at it in vast detail, but it's possible they were looking at food produced AND consumed in the UK, then switched to food produced AND consumed + exported. That's just a guess but it'd explain some stuff. The past 20 years has seen EU subsidies for leaving land fallow to avoid grain mountains, not to mention BSE etc. that may well explain some productivity decline, although building and other stuff has probably contributed as well.

Quote:
does that figure actually represent full self sufficiency, i.e. in all the things needed in the whole process, i.e. machinery, fertilisiers, labour, and all the other associated things required i presume not, and i know you'll rebut this by saying that we're talking about a worldwide revolution, but i'm not, but even if we were there would still be a massive reliance on importation of all the peripheral things required, machinery etc...

I don't know, why don't you ask them. We do have tractor and other companies etc. in the UK, and produce fertiliser and stuff. I hate to say it, but a lot of nitrogen could be preserved by treating human shit and piss and using it for low-grade fertiliser instead of sending it out into the ocean.

Quote:
and would the mass of the public be happy with the restriction in variety that came about if one country did somehow manage to be self sufficient?

Self-sufficiency wouldn't be a goal (although I think self-sufficiency in staple foodstuffs should be to reduce reliance on transportation), it's simply something that'd be a least partially possible, probably not just in the UK but other European countries as well (most of which have lower population density than the UK). Obviously people wouldn't be happy with it, but it's most likely that a revolution would come amid some kind of economic crisis when people are already pissed off - although you've suggested otherwise, none of us think that there'll be a revolution because we've persuaded everyone it'll be a really, really good idea what eh.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Jun 12 2007 20:10

All I can say is it'd be pretty rich if "revolutionaries" are asking us to have a decreased quality of living after "the revolution." I mean, damn, capitalism may not be all fun and games but I'm not into the whole self-sacrificing saint kinda thing. If I can't lounge around and watch TV and play computer games and eat pre-cooked food it aint my revolution! Why bother if life will be tougher, isn't the point that we want it to get better? Morals are one thing, quality of life is another. I know what i'm more into.

oisleep wrote:
well as i understand it, the current society's structure is built upon the economic base, one which is entirely unsuitable to a post revoluionary society, i'm sure i don't need to explain to you the fact that the political, social, legal, and moral landscape/superstructure is built of and rests upon the existing economic base, i presume any revolution you talk off would be, at root, the overturing of the economic basis of society, hence the necessary overhaulling of all that rests upon it

now, maybe you don't see that as being much work, fair enough, but i do

isn't the whole idea to grab onto the infrastructure of society? the new world growing right out of the shell of the old. so no, its not overturning the economic base, its seizing the economic base and kicking off the parasitical ruling class. your approach stinks of Marxism to me - reduce society to bare bones and build it up again. That was Pol Pot's bright idea all right.

I'll go for less work, more fun, better food, funner entertainment, better housing, self-determination and community-determination. So grand historical narratives for me, no thanks.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 12 2007 20:42
Mike Harman wrote:
Which'll be why I referenced 1917 and 1968 beforehand. The point is in all these cases it wasn't a domino effect, and it wasn't co-ordinated, various international conditions (and some specific local conditions - Japan 1918 was very different from Germany 1918) led to them happening all at the same time. 1917 and 1968 may not have been successful, but they definitely did rupture societies to various extents.

yes i agree, all i'm saying is that these things happened at times of high class struggle and consciousness (obviously that's a bit of a tautology as that's what caused them) and in the middle of actual wars, so if a highly militant and motivated class based movement couldn't develop anything lasting from these situations, you can't be that surprised when people like me wonder how on earth we could possibly get to such a similar stage again, as i've said before i don't doubt some impending crises coming up, but i'd just can't see how any kind of revolutionary movement could be built up and its ideas infused throughout the populace in time to take advantage of such crises, i hope and pray that they do, but the realist in me just can't see it

Quote:
And you've still not responded to the GI resistance vietnam, current mutiny and desertion in Iraq, or any of Joseph K.'s points on the same issue. All of which crippled (or is likely to with Iraq) the US army in situations far less serious than a full scale revolution in the UK.

to be honest mate, i'm not sure what i'm meant to respond to, i've got to admit i don't know much in that area, but i was genuinely unware that internal resistance & desertion etc.. had played such a big role in recent decades, not doubting though that come a bigger crisis, something bigger may happen, but again just like because a crisis in capitalism happens it doesn't mean that progressive alternatives will naturally follow

Quote:
For a start, the US, UK, and most other publics won't accept anything near the casualties in wars overseas that they were prepared to put up with until 1945, or 1960 or even 1990. Again, address our points.

true i agree they wouldn't accept it in the current situation that we're in at the moment, however one thing i think we are agreed upon is that any opportunity for any rupture to occur will be on the coattails of a crisis of probably monumental proportions, i don't think its logical for you to hold out for an opportunity to come for a revolution on the back of a big crisis but base your expectations of people's reactions, opinions and responses to that revolution (coming of the back of a crises) on conditions routed in a relatively stable climate, you and i have no way of telling how a state and it's public opinion would be in the midst of a massive energy or climate crisis surely?

you keep on asking me to address your points and i try to do so, but there's plenty of points i've made that youse have just left as well, it's a big topic with a lot of things discussed but don't make out its just a one way thing that's happening here

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jun 12 2007 20:52
lem wrote:
sacrcasm is a form od rudeness

so i get called a cunt, tosser, dick, (all by you btw) etc.. and i respond with a little sarcasm back and you have a wee greet because someons' been rude to you

don't be so rude to others in the first place if you can't handle a wee bit of it back at you

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 12 2007 21:11

you started it oisleep.