Club Jacobin

hobbit-hero:

authenticiouslycounterfeit:

amodernmanifesto:

As the ferocious crisis of Pakistani capitalism devastates society, we hear frantic cries of “revolution” from mainly the right-wing politicians and intellectuals. This reflects their utter desperation and impotent rage at the historical failure of their system to run society.

They refer to the French revolution, and go on about “bloody revolution” etc. Their intention is clear: it is to inculcate fear of “revolution” among the masses; but in reality it also reveals how terrified they are of such a prospect. However, in this hue and cry about revolutions they conveniently avoid mentioning the Bolshevik revolution as they are well aware of the real dangers that that tradition poses for this exploitative and oppressive system.

The Bolshevik, or the Russian Revolution, triumphed on November 7 (October 26 according to the orthodox Byzantine calendar) 1917. Apart from the heroic episode of the Paris Commune, for the first time millions of downtrodden workers and peasants took political power into their own hands, sweeping aside the despotic rule of the capitalists and landlords, and set out to create a socialist world order.

John Reed, the iconic American writer, described it in the following words, “No matter what one thinks of Bolshevism, it is undeniable that the Russian revolution is one of the greatest events in human history, and the rule of the Bolsheviki a phenomenon of worldwide importance.” (Ten Days that Shook the World, p.130).

Yes, because now we have historical evidence that the statist route is how not to carry out a revolution.

exactly. you can’t will a workers’ self-government to emerge if there are no proletarian forces remaining in any serious way. not only was the russian working class far too small to begin with for what was needed, they were absolutely devastated during the civil war.

in short, there was no working class to run the state. the conservative bureaucracy (populated in part by former Tsar officials) was the only body in any position to seize power en masse, and of course the conditions of severe famine only exacerbated this tendency - workers fled to the countryside in search of food, ceding Party control to other forces.

if the german revolution had been able to progress for a few more years before collapsing (because everyone was fucking murdered by the forerunners of the Nazis), the imperialist powers might have been deflected onto germany for long enough to give the Bolshevik Party and the soviet system enough elbow room to start developing in conditions of plenty, and perhaps held off civil war in russia altogether. who can say now?

So, you’re a revolutionary living in Russia in the 1910s. I guess you’re supposed to observe that the working class is too small (according to what metric?) and who knows, in the course of a revolution there could begin a civil war which would later decimate the class further. Therefore you throw up your hands and say, “A revolution can’t work in Russia! Let’s just abandon the country to the capitalists and warlords until there’s more of a proletariat to work with.” Is that about it?

Seems to me like it’s better to make a go for it. Outcomes are never certain and the odds will never be on our side, but we have to be audacious nonetheless. I would say that the peoples of the old Russian empire are better off because the Bolsheviks were audacious - as are we all who inherit the lessons of their attempts as well as the costs of their ultimate failure.

But maybe I’m just biased because I liked growing up in a world in which Naziism, colonialism and Jim Crow had been defeated. Call me crazy.

PS: In re:

Yes, because now we have historical evidence that the statist route is how not to carry out a revolution.

That is seriously one of the stupidest arguments I’ve seen today. (And I spent a lot of time on tumblr so that’s saying something.) OMG a plane crashed! Now we have historical evidence that manned flight is not viable!

(via inkdefense)