The Carnivalesque Rebellion Issue
A Brief History of Revolution
Image by Abyss, 2006, Narelle Autio


Our schoolbooks would like us to believe that social change must always be gradual and peaceful. Sudden, abrupt changes are seen as disruptions of a “normal” functioning society. “Respectable” society looks upon mass protest, civil disobedience, strikes, disruption and revolution with horror. But fundamental social change rarely comes gradually. Industrial unions didn’t come to this country by the gradual addition, year after year, of a few new unions. On the contrary, mass industrial unionism came in an explosion of organizing and mass strikes over a period of about five years, from 1934 to 1938. The gains of the civil rights movement were achieved through heroic civil disobedience and mass protest in the face of systematic racist terror.
While governments caution the governed to act peacefully and to refrain from drastic action, they themselves reserve the right to use overwhelming force. There was nothing gradual about the invasion of Iraq.
Revolution is the ultimate social leap – a period when the gradual accumulation of mass bitterness and anger of the exploited and oppressed coalesces and bursts forth into a mass movement to overturn existing social relations and replace them with new ones. A few days of revolutionary upheaval bring more change than decades of “normal” development. Rulers and systems that seemed invincible and immovable are suddenly unceremoniously toppled. Revolution is not an aberration in an otherwise smoothly functioning society.
The last three centuries have been filled not only with wars, but also with revolutions and near-revolutions. A list of only some of these gives us an idea of the scope of revolutionary upheaval since the dawn of modern capitalism: the American Revolution (1776-87), the French Revolution (1789-94), the US Civil War (1861-65), the European revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolutions (1905 and 1917), the German Revolution (1918-23), China (1925-27), the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), the Hungarian Revolution (1956), Chile (1973), Portugal (1974-75), Iran (1979), Poland’s Solidarnosc uprising (1980-81). This partial list is enough to put to rest the notion that revolutions are rare or unusual occurrences.
Paul D’Amato, The Meaning of Marxism
Part: 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9 – 10
Right-click to download the full audio version of "A Brief History of Revolution"
24 comments on the article “A Brief History of Revolution”
Displaying 21 - 24 of 24
Page 3 of 3
Anonymous
Adbusters is seriously mired in the 1960s. That "we must change everything now" yawping of the perpetual adolescent is was has to change. None of what they advocate works on a macro level. The game of dress-up played with their communist ideology wherein they tart the old red lady up in newspeak has grown old. The editorial staff needs to take serious, sober look around and see that no one is playing any more. The tools of change are being made by highly paid, highly educated capitalists who are not particularly enamored of having their means of production seized or smashed by those who've been whipped into Robespierreian frenzy by pyschopathic opportunists or red diaper doper babies grown up and run amok. The way Adbusters has lumped together the 'Revolutions' is telling...the cherry picking of facts and events to support their worldview is like when a person with Borderline Personality Disorder alternately idealizes and demonizes the people in their life based on single episodes or events. I know this stuff is making all you people a comfortable living, but come on, you too can join in our reindeer games, and make the world a better place with EVERYONE, not just for your fellow travelers.
Anonymous
Adbusters is seriously mired in the 1960s. That "we must change everything now" yawping of the perpetual adolescent is was has to change. None of what they advocate works on a macro level. The game of dress-up played with their communist ideology wherein they tart the old red lady up in newspeak has grown old. The editorial staff needs to take serious, sober look around and see that no one is playing any more. The tools of change are being made by highly paid, highly educated capitalists who are not particularly enamored of having their means of production seized or smashed by those who've been whipped into Robespierreian frenzy by pyschopathic opportunists or red diaper doper babies grown up and run amok. The way Adbusters has lumped together the 'Revolutions' is telling...the cherry picking of facts and events to support their worldview is like when a person with Borderline Personality Disorder alternately idealizes and demonizes the people in their life based on single episodes or events. I know this stuff is making all you people a comfortable living, but come on, you too can join in our reindeer games, and make the world a better place with EVERYONE, not just for your fellow travelers.
Ian Smith
Robert Owen (1771–1858) was a quiet revolutionary. This Welshman is to be thanked for the first infant school in the UK, founder of the cooperative movement, founder of the first consolidated trade unions among so much more. He was the founder of socialism. A phrase coined at one of his meetings. His 'utopian socialism' predates the revolutionary's socialism.
Friedrich Engels described Robert Owen as "a man of almost sublime, childlike character," who was, nevertheless, "one of the few born leaders of men." He added: Every social movement and real advance in England on behalf of the workers links with the name of Robert Owen."
an example quote
The Social System — Constitution, Laws, and Regulations of a Community (1826) [written in 1821, published in 1826]
* There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each.
Union and co-operation in war obviously increase the power of the individual a thousand fold. Is there the shadow of a reason why they should not produce equal effects in peace; why the principle of co-operation should not give to men the same superior powers, and advantages, (and much greater) in the creation, preservation, distribution and enjoyment of wealth?
Ian Smith
Robert Owen (1771–1858) was a quiet revolutionary. This Welshman is to be thanked for the first infant school in the UK, founder of the cooperative movement, founder of the first consolidated trade unions among so much more. He was the founder of socialism. A phrase coined at one of his meetings. His 'utopian socialism' predates the revolutionary's socialism.
Friedrich Engels described Robert Owen as "a man of almost sublime, childlike character," who was, nevertheless, "one of the few born leaders of men." He added: Every social movement and real advance in England on behalf of the workers links with the name of Robert Owen."
an example quote
The Social System — Constitution, Laws, and Regulations of a Community (1826) [written in 1821, published in 1826]
* There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each.
Union and co-operation in war obviously increase the power of the individual a thousand fold. Is there the shadow of a reason why they should not produce equal effects in peace; why the principle of co-operation should not give to men the same superior powers, and advantages, (and much greater) in the creation, preservation, distribution and enjoyment of wealth?
Pages
Add a new comment