Revolutions in action

This is an invaluable essay, yet one we should critique, because it actually attempts, after a fashion, to consider the actual process of social construction in the wake of ‘revolution’. As we see the whole subject suddenly stumbles into complexities of all kinds. Let us note to start in passing that ‘class struggle’ is not the motor of history. We always caution about statements about historical dynamics. Marxism got it wrong, along with most other attempts. This needs more discussion elsewhere.
The motor of history can only be approximated: our methods of the eonic model suggests a better approach…The macro transitions there are ‘revolutions’ after a fashion, but far more complex…
But we might reiterate our warning

that the examples discussed, e.g. the bolshevik era, show that while it is true that social reconstruction takes time, the fact is that the russian revolution had no real blueprint and the long delay equally indicates this.
In our view (but this essay deserves multiple discussions) the revolution should at least attempt to act quickly, with programs more or less thought out in advance.
Consider our DMNC: democratic market neo-communism, it is partially described (only that!) but indicates a rapid set of actions: expropriation, creation of a Commons, legally and in practice, creation of both a strong authority and a new democratic set of structures (parliament and/or worker orgs), new legal structures asap, very difficult, planning structures and a new type of market, etc… This program would have hundreds of different aspects that should be put into effect at once, as possible. We make no claim that our DMNC is complete but it shows how a revolutionary transformation can be more than ad hoc after the fact.
The fact remains that in every case a revolutionary moment has had no real plan of action, an amazing fact…

We haven’t actually discussed much in this useful essay, but we have at least given some indications, and we must suggest that something like our DMNC approach is potentially far superior: most socialists don’t really have a clue about how to proceed.

But, most of the time, the building of the revolutionary momentum is glacial, and the attempt to transform a state and society can be even more slow.

Source: A Letter to Intellectuals Who Deride Revolutions in the Name of Purity | Portside

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s