Bourgeois And Proletarian Revolutions?

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Red Hughs
Bourgeois And Proletarian Revolutions?
Printer-friendly version

Well, that's a big subject...

I just wanted to ask one (rhetorical, I guess) question related to the current situation(s). Have there been any proletarian uprisings that didn't have a bourgeois component? Certainly, there was debate in 1917 whether the Russian revolution was a bourgeois or a proletarian revolution.

If one can assume "upcoming" revolts are going to have some "bourgeois" aspects/component, what are the implications? 

 

Alf
bourgeois and proletarian revolutions

  Well,I would guess you would agree with us that the epoch of bourgeois revolutions is long behind us. So the question is that any future proletarian revolution will have to confront (counter-revolutionary) bourgeois influences within itself as well as the actual bourgeoisie and its state.  I would say that this is inevitable in any proletarian movement given the fact that the working class is an exploited class, which for the most part is held down by the dominant ideology as well as simple repression. Or is there another question here? 

A.Simpleton
Non Proletarian : Revolutionary : Counter Revolutionary

So the question is that any future proletarian revolution will have to confront (counter-revolutionary) bourgeois influences within itself as well as the actual bourgeoisie and its state. 

 I would say that this is inevitable in any proletarian movement given the fact that the working class is an exploited class, which for the most part is held down by the dominant ideology as well as simple repression.

I have given much thought to this post as it seems to me to 'over-arch' many of the other 'strings' under discussion viz: 10 Shades of Non Revolution : UN Intervention : and the Are Muslims and non proletarians....etc.

*****

It is my underdstanding that the ICC's platform correctly identifies :

" two occasions in which the bourgeois state has been overthrown and the proletarian dictatorship established : The Paris Commune and The Russian Revolution " 

The defeat of both has been a huge source of theoretical development : so I would comment re: Alf's response about the bourgeois , counter-revolutionary elements within it ( the revolt ) that it was ever thus . As he says " inevitable in any proletarian movement " So it is not a new thing for the future but an inevitable element in the past as well ( I'm not saying you don't realise this ..just clarifying )

Your 'reminder' that as well as 'simple repression' there is 'the dominant ideology' in addition is also very relevant .

Many of the posts asking about or taking a position on the 'proletarian' or 'non proletarion' nature of this or that event are also important ..BUT ...they seem to wander off into what is almost a sort of 'means-test' of 'proletarian-ness' as if a score of 80% proletarian 20% 'other' was 'good' : 40 % proletarian 30% peasant 30% 'other' not so good and so on .....

It seems to be 'on its head'

Take the case of Libya , no doubt doomed to failure for all the reasons posted but I did not once hear references to 'The Libyan Liberation Front ' or the 'Anti-Gaddafi League ' in the 72 hours of what I described as 'wildcat truth' : it seems to have been a 'blind' if you like but not per se counter-revolutionary rebellion .

*****

Marx's comment on the annals of the 1848/9 revolution in which openly bourgois elements fought alongside the proletariat ( Class Struggles in France ) in which the chapter headings so often cried 'defeat' was this :

"What succumbed in these defeats was not the revolution . It was the pre-revolutionary appendages, results of social relationships , which had not yet come to th point of sharp class antagonisms - persons, illusions, conceptions ,projects from which the revolutionary party before February Revolution was not free ,from which it could be freed not by the victory of February , but only by a series of defeats .

In a word :the revolution made progress , forged ahead ,not by its immediate tragicomic achievements but on the contrary by the creation of a powerful counter-revolution, by the creation of an opponent in combat with whom, only,the party of overthrow can ripen into a really revolutionary party "

*****

Of course the circumstances then and now are utterly different : I am no Bordigist and to be honest I don't think I quite know exactly what points I am trying to make .

The struggle will decide not theoretic deduction : but some theoretical foundations have surely remained irrefutable for 150 years : ( is it in Preface to A Critique ? I can't remember )

"History does nothing :it does not possess immense riches , it does not fight battles . It is men, real  living men who do all this "

and

"Men make their own history , but they do not make it just as they please ; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves , but under circumstances directly encountered , given and transmitted from the past "

 " The muck of ages " as the ICC aptly decribes the impeding baggage that even 'bona fide ' proletarians carry  .

So to what can a desperate , oppressed , immiserated non proletarian turn but blind rebellion which may or may not lead to a 'constructive defeat '

And yes Alf there is another question and it is as important now as in 1919 :

Is not the absence of western revolutions paramount ?

plus of course 

Am I making any sense here ? 

d-man
b or p revolution?

comrade A. wrote:

Many of the posts asking about or taking a position on the 'proletarian' or 'non proletarion' nature of this or that event are also important ..BUT ...they seem to wander off into what is almost a sort of 'means-test' of 'proletarian-ness' as if a score of 80% proletarian 20% 'other' was 'good' : 40 % proletarian 30% peasant 30% 'other' not so good and so on .....

It seems to be 'on its head'

100% proletarians protesting can be 100% counter-revolutionary.

A. wrote:

Take the case of Libya , no doubt doomed to failure for all the reasons posted but I did not once hear references to 'The Libyan Liberation Front ' or the 'Anti-Gaddafi League ' in the 72 hours of what I described as 'wildcat truth' : it seems to have been a 'blind' if you like but not per se counter-revolutionary rebellion .

A lot can happen in 3 days, but I don't think there was wildcat truth or now counter-revolution, when the rebel leadership can claim and enjoys the moral support.

A. wrote:
Marx's comment on the annals of the 1848/9 revolution in which openly bourgois elements fought alongside the proletariat ( Class Struggles in France ) in which the chapter headings so often cried 'defeat' was this :

"What succumbed in these defeats was not the revolution . It was the pre-revolutionary appendages, results of social relationships , which had not yet come to th point of sharp class antagonisms - persons, illusions, conceptions ,projects from which the revolutionary party before February Revolution was not free ,from which it could be freed not by the victory of February , but only by a series of defeats .

In a word :the revolution made progress , forged ahead ,not by its immediate tragicomic achievements but on the contrary by the creation of a powerful counter-revolution, by the creation of an opponent in combat with whom, only,the party of overthrow can ripen into a really revolutionary party "

Of course the circumstances then and now are utterly different : I am no Bordigist and to be honest I don't think I quite know exactly what points I am trying to make .

There's no feudalism, there's that. And the transition of regimes in Egypt and Tunisia was through the state system, which remains in place, so not even a revolution in the more common meaning. Bordigists are right that changing circumstances do not mean a proposition wins or loses in truth.

A. wrote:
The struggle will decide not theoretic deduction : but some theoretical foundations have surely remained irrefutable for 150 years : ( is it in Preface to A Critique ? I can't remember )

"History does nothing :it does not possess immense riches , it does not fight battles . It is men, real  living men who do all this "

and

"Men make their own history , but they do not make it just as they please ; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves , but under circumstances directly encountered , given and transmitted from the past "

Yep, still valid to stress both the subjective and the objective, but can't oppose theoretical deducation to struggle.

 

A. wrote:
" The muck of ages " as the ICC aptly decribes the impeding baggage that even 'bona fide ' proletarians carry  .

So to what can a desperate , oppressed , immiserated non proletarian turn but blind rebellion which may or may not lead to a 'constructive defeat '

I don't expect the rebellions to teach them or the Western proletarians anything. The ruling classes learn much more from this.

A. wrote:
And yes Alf there is another question and it is as important now as in 1919 :

Is not the absence of western revolutions paramount ?

The Germans are busy protesting about nuclear safety.

Returning to Red Hugs' questions, I think succesful protests demanding 'bourgeois' reforms that create more liberal-democracy are possible (and even desirable I would say, sadly they are a very small minority in the ones we see now). There is the need for confrontation with them naturally. For now though, there's no Socialist-revolutionary party in government anywhere or even a significant 'radical democratic' party among the opposition, to engage with.

A.Simpleton
b or p revolutions : very welcome clarification by d-man

I emerge clarified :

I was actually aware at the time of the important truth

" 100% proletarians protesting can be 100% counter-revolutionary"

Indeed .

It was meant to be the last sentence of that paragraph in fact .

(I felt lost in some of the exchanges between contributors discussing Egypt , Tunisia , Libya using a statistical basis almost  ...fractions , quantities of workers protesting , as opposed to whatever other strata as a measure of the event's nature .)

****

No feudalism ; thank you  : ( with a few Kings and a lot of peasants one could slide ..)

Theorie und Praxis : a dialectic not a division or opposition : I sit reminded .

A.Simpleton
D-man Pt II : not entirely wide of the mark ?

As you say a lot can happen in three days :

From the ICC online article

LIbya : a humanitarian war ? No : ! An Imperialist War .. 

" what seems to have begun as a real revolt by ‘those at the bottom’, by unarmed civilians who bravely attacked military barracks and torched the HQs of the so-called ‘Peoples’ Committees’"

That is what I meant by my perhaps inadequate shorthand - 'wildcat truth ' : a real revolt that escaped however briefly the control of the exploiting class .

You disagree ? : " but I don't think there was wildcat truth ......Academic now for the Imperialist War has begun .

*****

Also my 'Yes Alf there is another question '

*Is not the absence of western revolution paramount ?

"the Germans are protesting about nuclear power' you reply  ...so yes there is an active class resistance and doubtless determined , somewhere in Europe .

But again from the ICC online article

" Whatever happens, for all the populations facing the most terrible repression, or the bombs of this or that international coalition, the sky will not clear until the proletariat of the central countries, particularly western Europe, develops its own massive and determined struggles "

This seems to value my question more .

*****

 Anyway I posted on the wrong page through misconception : it should have been part of your topic : human error is everywhere :

 

d-man
never off mark

comrade A. wrote:

From the ICC online article

LIbya : a humanitarian war ? No : ! An Imperialist War .. 

" what seems to have begun as a real revolt by ‘those at the bottom’, by unarmed civilians who bravely attacked military barracks and torched the HQs of the so-called ‘Peoples’ Committees’"

That is what I meant by my perhaps inadequate shorthand - 'wildcat truth ' : a real revolt that escaped however briefly the control of the exploiting class .

You disagree ? : " but I don't think there was wildcat truth ......Academic now for the Imperialist War has begun .

I ironically call this the fetishisation of really existing self-organisation. The analogy often used to describe the mideast events was that of an earthquake or a wave, which if you think about it, is somewhat strange, because they are so destructive. It's true though, that an earthquake is out of the control of the exploiting class, it is massive, spontaneous and international. It even starts at the bottom!

A. wrote:

Also my 'Yes Alf there is another question '

*Is not the absence of western revolution paramount ?

"the Germans are protesting about nuclear power' you reply  ...so yes there is an active class resistance and doubtless determined , somewhere in Europe .

But again from the ICC online article

" Whatever happens, for all the populations facing the most terrible repression, or the bombs of this or that international coalition, the sky will not clear until the proletariat of the central countries, particularly western Europe, develops its own massive and determined struggles "

This seems to value my question more .

I didn't disagree, but was implying that the Germans' response is faster and far larger to something in distant Japan than to the revolts, so that shows how little the proletariat in central countries is occupied with the matter (why would anyone except them to be interested?) .

Crisanto
Nepal is not semi-feudal

Nepal's mode of production is not semi-feudal but capitalist. True it has a backward economy with some remnants of feudalism which is common to almost "3rd world countries". But this does not diminish the fact that Nepal's economy is fully integrated with the world capitalist economy: market, commodity production, profit-oriented, etc.