Why does humanity need world revolution?

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Why does humanity need world revolution?
Printer-friendly version

Vladislav Bugera. Why does humanity need world revolution?


We live in a class society. For so long as it exists, there will exist competition and the struggle for power, looting and terror, big and small wars. Any attempts to get rid of all these calamities while preserving the foundation of class society — relations of property and management in which those productive forces that belong to me do not belong to another and vice versa and in which society is divided into managers and managed — are utopian and unrealisable.

But let us ask ourselves a question. Is it worth trying to get rid of these calamities? After all, people have been living in class society for nine thousand years. They seem to have grown accustomed to social alienation and all its consequences. Perhaps it is not worth our while to engage in risky experiments in the quest for some new way of life? To accept and live by the rules of the game that are now in force, and if you do try to change them somehow then only in particular minor details — that, you know, is safer than destroying the whole world of violence and building a new world in its place. What kind of new world exactly? And how is it to be built — in accordance with what models, by what means? And what for? Of course, many do not survive in this world. Many find life in it unbearable. But most adapt somehow and live — some better, others (the majority) worse, but somehow people get by. And what if the notorious new world turns out much worse than the old? What if humanity comes to ruin in its quest?

The contemporary philistine has quite definite readymade answers to all these questions. They all boil down to the same thing: live in the society that our forebears have handed down to us and don’t try to change its foundations. However, let’s take a detached view and look more closely at the world in which we live. When we do that, we discover an astonishing thing. Our technology has reached a level of development at which the further existence of an alienated class society is simply incompatible with the survival of humanity. If competition and the struggle for power between people go on, in the form not only of big and small wars but also of production for the sake of capitalists’ profits and managers’ careers, then at the current level of technology humanity will destroy itself sooner or later. Sooner or later, but in any case quite soon, within another couple of hundred years at most. And there is no way for humanity to return to a lower level of technology. If it tried to do so, it would inevitably destroy itself in the attempt.

At the level of technological development that humanity has reached in the course of the Scientific-Technological Revolution (STR), each small war means a big ecological catastrophe. War today — even if nuclear weapons are not used — means explosions of oil and gas wells, of repositories of toxic chemicals and radioactive waste, of the factories where all this contagion is produced, of nuclear power plants… The longer that people go on fighting one another, the greater will be the irreversible losses to the Earth’s natural environment. And as people will go on fighting one another so long as class society exists, it may be considered proven on these grounds alone that if within a certain time (whether one, two, or three hundred years is not so important; what matters is that by historical standards time is very short — hardly more than two or three hundred years) class society does not give way (or at least begin to give way) to some different type of social organization that abolishes competition and the struggle for power between people then there will certainly be a global ecological catastrophe and humanity will perish.

How can the threat of war be eliminated without eliminating class society? By creating a single world state belonging to the exploiting classes (economically dominant classes that appropriate the surplus product of the labor of their subjects) of the whole world? But, as anyone should be able to understand, contradictions between different groups of exploiters, their internecine struggle for money and power are ineradicable in principle (until the exploiting classes are themselves done away with). Two things follow from this. First, the very attempt to create such a state would inevitably bring about either a new world war or a series of local wars equivalent in scale, casualties, and destruction, thereby bringing global ecological catastrophe closer. Second, even if such a state were to be created (which in itself is practically impossible) it would inevitably turn out to be short-lived: contradictions between groups of exploiters would very soon tear it apart, and that would again be accompanied by big wars. As we see, so long as class society exists it will inevitably drive itself, and with it all humanity, into the grave.

Could we perhaps save ourselves from this threat by retaining class society but rejecting high technology, by throwing the productive forces of humanity three hundred years back? It wouldn’t work. Even if all the states of the world — or a hypothetical world state, which in reality will never arise — were suddenly to lose their senses and begin to carry out this plan, these states (or the groups of the ruling class within the single world state) would certainly hold on to their modern armaments. (No insanity would ever shield them from this pressing necessity, born of the struggle for power and money.) And if modern armaments are preserved, that means that the entire sector of industry needed for their production will likewise be preserved. This in itself would be quite sufficient for ecological catastrophe — all the more so considering that as a result of the abandonment of productive forces famine would stalk the Earth and the struggle between people for survival acquire a terrible intensity, leading to chaos and horrifying wars. Twist and turn as you will, but class society can no longer ensure the survival of humanity.

But let us suppose that by some miracle class society manages to avoid wars and eternal peace sets in. Could it then ensure the survival of humanity? It is not difficult to prove that even in this hypothetical case class society will before long send humanity to its grave. After all, for what purpose is production carried on in this society? For the purpose of increasing the wealth and power of the exploiting classes. For industrial civilisation this means: for the sake of capitalists’ profits and managers’ careers. Harmonious mutual adaptation of nature and production is quite possible from the technical point of view; there is nothing utopian about it. But it requires enormous outlays of resources — outlays that cannot be quickly recouped. In a world where economic activity is controlled by competing exploitative organizations (“private” firms and states) and competing groups inside each such organization, no single exploiter can permit himself such outlays, for if he does his competitors will devour him. Nor can a firm and lasting agreement among all, or even a majority, of exploiters ever be reached, because the struggle for wealth and power is inseparable from the very essence of relations among them. Pressure from the broad masses may compel the wealthy and the powerful to cough up a little for the “protection of nature” — but only a little, and that will help only for a time. The most of which class society is capable by way of harmonizing relations between man and nature is miserable palliative measures on the part of some of the richest states, the main effect of which is the transfer of the most harmful production facilities to poorer countries. But the earth is a single entity, and any contagion released into the environment at any point will sooner or later spread throughout the globe. In short, for so long as humanity remains divided into managers and managed, until such time as it constitutes itself into a single collective the interests of all the members of which coincide, it will move toward its doom with ever growing speed. If humanity does not begin its transition from alienated to collective existence, it will very soon perish in a global ecological catastrophe.

Humanity has already known times when people lived collectively. Primitive communities were small collectives. What is a “collective”? It is not just any united group, but only one in which many managerial decisions are taken together by all members of the group, without any division into bosses and subordinates. And not even by a majority of votes, but in the way of primitive communities, where the members of the community would discuss a matter until they had arrived at a single opinion and a decision was considered taken only when unanimity had been achieved. In those cases where it was not possible to dispense with the coordinating role of leaders, they were elected (again on the basis of unanimity) and closely monitored by their subordinates and subject to recall and replacement at any time. Such relations of production, which necessarily gave rise to an egalitarian distribution of material goods and their consumption under strict collective control, created a real coincidence of interests among all members of the community. Let us add that all adult members of the community were armed, and no would-be leader had the chance to rely on a minority in order to consolidate his power over the majority. If within the next two or three hundred years humanity turns into a united collective like the little collective that each primitive community once comprised, then it will be able to dispose of its technology in such a way as to achieve the harmonious mutual adaptation of nature and production.

The development of computer technology creates the technical possibility of convening many thousands and millions of people in mass meetings to resolve the most complex issues in a few hours and take collective managerial decisions without any division into bosses and subordinates. However, this possibility will become reality only when the ordinary wage and salary earners of the whole world rise up against their lords and masters, organize under the leadership of their party, and forcibly take the means of production out of the hands of the exploiting classes. (Of course, this will happen not all at once, but first in some countries, then in others, and so on.) Should this uprising succeed, it will lay the foundation for the transition of humanity from class society to collectivism.

Of course, the worldwide violent struggle of the proletariat for power is nothing other than worldwide class war. Like any other world war at the current level of development of the productive forces, it poses the threat of the destruction of humanity. But if humanity does survive this war and the insurgents win it, then wars on earth will cease and no longer threaten people with destruction. If there is no worldwide proletarian rebellion or if it is defeated, then wars on earth will continue — and in the final reckoning will inevitably destroy humanity. In other words, today humanity finds itself in roughly the same kind of situation as a person who is gravely sick with cancer in a vital organ. If an operation is performed, the patient may die or may survive. If no operation is performed, he may live another month, two months, at most a year—but he will certainly die.

From all this there follows an inescapable conclusion. The life of ordinary people who feed their families, bring up their children, and do the daily work that this requires has meaning only if the world proletarian revolution begins in the relatively near future and in the course of time is victoriously completed. In other words, that kind of life, in and of itself, is devoid of meaning. It is given meaning by the existence on earth of consistent proletarian revolutionaries who have not fallen into any form of opportunism. The greater the number of such revolutionaries in the world, the more meaning there is in the existence of humanity. For so long as the contemporary person does not become a revolutionary, his life is devoid of independent meaning: it is infused with meaning only from without, thanks to the existence of revolutionaries on earth. By becoming a revolutionary, a person not only gives value to his own life but also infuses a little more meaning into the life of all the other people who live on earth.

To be a consistent proletarian revolutionary and through one’s propaganda turn other people into the same — this is the way of life for contemporary man that is most worthy of a rational being.

Proletarian Revolution [Пролетарская революция], No. 1, fall 2001

Translated by Stefan

Other articles in English:


This article is puzzling.

This article is puzzling. It's not that one disagrees with what it's saying - -that the capitalist world is ripe for revolutionary overthrow, and that there are many good reasons for this to be done - it's that the writers make it sound as if this is a new idea that they've just come up with, and they want to try it out on other people to see what they think about it. What the article lacks is any reference or acknowledgement of the fact that communism (never mentioned by name ) has a history, and that there have been revolutionaries around since say 1847, urging the working class forward in it's struggles and writing and developing communist theory on the basis of those struggles. So the article comes across as a bit coy; for most of it's readers will know that what it says isn't just a new idea; and for readers who don't know that...well, for them it's a bit like a dance of the seven veils with the " inescapable" conclusion turning up at the end.

And what exactly is the conclusion? It has two parts. First, most people's lives will remain devoid of meaning unless there's a revolution soon. I suppose we can go along with that. Certainly all our lives could easily be improved and acquire a lot more meaning under communism than under deadly putrefying capitalism. The second part is about the role of revolutionaries, and..."the existence on earth of consistent proletarian revolutionaries who have not fallen into any form of opportunism. The greater the number of such revolutionaries in the world, the more meaning there is in the existence of humanity. For so long as the contemporary person does not become a revolutionary, his life is devoid of independent meaning: it is infused with meaning only from without, thanks to the existence of revolutionaries on earth." Alarm bells ring.

This quote has a number of things to grumble about, but I'll leave it to readers to suss these out for themselves! I'll go for the last. The one about people's lives being infused with meaning from without, by the all-knowing revolutionary (who revolutionizes the revolutionary, you may ask?). But perhaps Fred is being a little harsh here, and maybe some of these oddities are down to a not-always-consistently-good translation. Although it seems overall that Steve has done a good job. What do you think?

Having gone (foolishly?) to

Having gone (foolishly?) to the link offered by Eretik or is it Stefan at the end of this article, I think I begin to understand why other posters sensibly avoid this area like the plague that it is. For it is a veritable barrel of wriggling worms. If you follow the link you end up with various comments and letters from groups claiming a left communist heritage and either seeking, avoiding, or denouncing contacts with each other and "the most important organizations the proletariat has created since the degeneration of the Communist International" that is the ICC and the ICT.I can't remember exactly which of the various participants made this insightful comment. But overall the discussion is about whether different groups in different countries - groups from what has been called the Proletarian Milieu, though even use of that term is in dispute now I believe - can actually put aside their hardly enormous differences and join together. But don't get excited coz it don't seem likely! In fact it sux!

What happens is that the discussion drags in all the stinky old stuff about the various schisms the ICC and the ICT have gone through during the last thirty years, and the validity or not of the ICC's idea of "parasitism". It's a bit sad really. But to be fair, neither the ICC nor the ICT take part in this, though they are quoted. And clearly command a lot of respect: as indeed they should! But the dirty linen aspect is unfortunate today. It should all have been washed long ago!

Marx gets quoted. "“Proletarian revolutions, ... constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever...”

But whoever is quoting this appears to think it relates to organizations of today's communist left. That it is the communist left, in it's splintered form, which manifests weakness and paltriness (maybe it does) and that it is the communist left which the proletariat struggles to throw down as it's opponent. We have to insist that this is not the case, and not what Marx is talking about. The communist left will one day get over it's infantile disorders and will one day draw new strength and rise up like a giant. Then the bourgeoisie can look out.

Uh... I just got a blog

Uh... I just got a blog mostly in Russian when I followed the link?

Leo, you must have done

Leo, you must have done something wrong. If you tap the lower link you get stuff IN ENGLISH (including articles from the ICT and others) and then you can proceed via another link there to Klasbalo ( that's probably spelt wrong ) and find the stuff (in English) I'm referring to. It can't be difficult otherwise I'd never have done it.

What is the purpose of that

What is the purpose of that blog? It seems like a collection of articles from other sources. I can't read Russian, so it isn't clear what I am looking at there exactly. Can someone who reads Russian fill us in?

ЕРЕТИК Главная страницаЗачем


Главная страницаЗачем человечеству нужна мировая революцияЖурнал "Еретик" (PDF-подшивка)Why does humanity need world revolution?Революционные организации мираБиблиотекаaboutus
Показаны сообщения с ярлыком Articles in English. Показать все сообщения
28 March strike: Why are we not united?

Thousands of teachers are striking in London on 28 March against the governments pension ‘reforms’

But is it just teachers who have a reason to protest?

No. It’s the whole public sector. All pensions are under attack, and the latest budget, with its ‘granny tax’, has made it worse. Last November the civil servants, local government employees and others were out alongside those who work in education. Why have the unions decided not to bring them out today?

It’s the whole private sector, where growing numbers of workers can’t look forward to any kind of pension at all.

Is it just pensions?

No. More and more workers face long term pay freezes, worsening conditions at work – if they have a job at all. Over 20 percent of young people between 16 and 25 are out of work.

Is it just London?

No. These conditions are faced by workers up and down the country

Is it just Britain?

No. the brutal austerity measures being imposed on the working class and the entire population in Greece, Portugal and Spain, where wages and pensions are already being directly cut and hundreds etc etc etc"

Jk this is what I get if I follow the lower link given by eretik and samizdat and it's not in Russian. It's the ICC in fact. In English. And there's a link to tbe side going to Klasbolo or whatever.



"Мы все - греки", или лирическая драма патриотизма
Один день назад

Реальное - это уничтоженное возможное
Один день назад

Les communistes internationalistes - Klasbatalo!
Réponse au GIO et à la TCI
4 дн. назад

Internationalist communists - Klasbatalo!
Response to IWG and ICT
4 дн. назад

The link to Klasbatalo gets you the stuff I was referring to - it was clearly a foolish thing to do I see that now, more foolish than I knew.
But it's not in Russian but in English, and you don't have to be a computer whizz-kid to get access. There are enough difficulties in the world as it is, without having to invent new ones.

I'm not sure if that blog has

I'm not sure if that blog has anything to do with Klasbatalo, which is a small group in Canada, than having given a link to their website. There seems to be lots of articles from a number of left communist groups linked there.