http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... revolutionok. here are a few quick reservations amongst the jubilance, and they are important
imagining the overthrow of the current political system is the only way I can be enthused about politics
I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites.
completely agree
Is utopian revolution possible?
The freethinking social architect Buckminster Fuller said humanity now faces a choice: oblivion or utopia.
We’re inertly ambling towards oblivion, is utopia really an option?
so here is where i get nervous, because all attempts at utopia have ended in tragedy
To me a potent and triumphant leftist movement, aside from the glorious Occupy rumble, is a faint, idealistic whisper from sepia rebels. The formation of the NHS, holiday pay, sick pay, the weekend – achievements of peaceful trade union action were not achieved in the lifetime of the directionless London rioters. They are uninformed of the left’s great legacy as it is dismantled around them.
these gains of the left were made by social democracy, not revolutionary socialism
I felt pretty embarrassed that my involvement was being questioned, in a manner that is all too common on the left. It’s been said that: “The right seeks converts and the left seeks traitors.” This moral superiority that is peculiar to the left is a great impediment to momentum. It is also a right drag when you’re trying to enjoy a riot.
Perhaps this is why there is currently no genuinely popular left-wing movement to counter Ukip, the EDL and the Tea Party; for an ideology that is defined by inclusiveness, socialism has become in practice quite exclusive.
yes, the left is too divisive of its self because it demands a higher standard of argument and evidence than the right, it is genuinely interested in critical theory whereas the right only needs a flimsy veil to hide its kleptocracy behind,
but ...
socialism has not been defined by inclusiveness, in fact, from Marx and Engels onwards, class war is central to the doctrine and class war by definition is the dominance of one exclusive group against another, like it or not, certain interpretations of Socialist theory are exclusionary and oppressive by their nature
For me the solution has to be primarily spiritual and secondarily political. This, too, is difficult terrain when the natural tribal leaders of the left are atheists, when Marxism is inveterately Godless. When the lumbering monotheistic faiths have given us millennia of grief for a handful of prayers and some sparkly rituals.
Socialism was certainly not godless in its origins and many of the early socialists were Christian socialists, but the Church was rightly seen as a component of the dominant structure and rightly attacked
Any new holistic left wing movement that places the planet, human dignity and freedom, and equality as its priorities must accept atheist and religious points of view as equally valid
Buckminster Fuller outlines what ought be our collective objectives succinctly: “to make the world work for 100 per cent of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous co-operation without ecological offence or the disadvantage of anyone”.
Fuck yeah
The price of privilege is poverty. David Cameron said in his conference speech that profit is “not a dirty word”. Profit is the most profane word we have. In its pursuit we have forgotten that while individual interests are being met, we as a whole are being annihilated.
We have succumbed to an ideology that is 100 per cent corrupt and must be overthrown.
Fuck yeah
Perhaps in a system where legitimate, peaceful protest was heard that may have been an appropriate option for them, but Stop the War marches don’t stop wars, at the top of the pyramid larceny is rewarded with big bonuses. They may have been misdirected but they certainly had some vim. How beautiful it would be to see their passion utilised and directed at the source of their grievances.
Right on, but the most oppressive systems produce the most destructive reactions and everyone needs to be mindful of that. Lenin appeared in Russia and built the machine of terror for Stalin in the name of Marx, but he was able to do so because the Russian Aristocracy of the Romanovs was the most brutal, repressive and backward in all of Europe.
The hypocrisy – me, working for MTV with my fancy shoes – is a problem that can be taken care of incrementally. I don’t mind giving up some of my baubles and balderdash for a genuinely fair system, so can we create one? We have to be inclusive of everyone, to recognise our similarities are more important than our differences and that we have an immediate ecological imperative.
yep, thats the spirit
We now must live in reality, inner and outer. Consciousness itself must change. My optimism comes entirely from the knowledge that this total social shift is actually the shared responsibility of six billion individuals who ultimately have the same interests. Self-preservation and the survival of the planet. This is a better idea than the sustenance of an elite.
fuck yeah
The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity. Not out of some woolly, bullshit tree-hugging piffle but because we live on it, currently without alternatives. This is why I believe we need a unifying and inclusive spiritual ideology: atheism and materialism atomise us and anchor us to one frequency of consciousness and inhibit necessary co-operation.
woah there, the first bit is right but the unifying and inclusive spiritual ideology is worrying Russell, Saint Simon wanted an all inclusive pseudo-spiritual ideology as well, but it sets you down the road to exclusion, unifying spiritual ideologies are the very essence of the springboard to fanticism, the march of the true believers, this way only ruin lays
To genuinely make a difference, we must become different; make the tiny, longitudinal shift. Meditate, direct our love indiscriminately and our condemnation exclusively at those with power. Revolt in whatever way we want, with the spontaneity of the London rioters, with the certainty and willingness to die of religious fundamentalists or with the twinkling mischief of the trickster. We should include everyone, judging no one, without harming anyone.
again, i like the vibe, but certainty is again the route to tyranny, doubt is an essential tool in the kit of the thoughtful revoltionary
Now there is an opportunity for the left to return to its vital, virile, vigorous origins. A movement for the people, by the people, in the service of the land. Socialism’s historical connection with spiritual principles is deep. Sharing is a spiritual principle, respecting our land is a spiritual principle.
yes, i want this movement, i am in, and i get that it needs to be constructive and empowering as against divisive and judgemental,
but beware certainty, beware religous fervour, beware the movement towards eschatological utopia, and remember that most of the real gains of the left were gained by the very gradual reforms that sociopaths like Lenin mocked so thoroughly,
smashing things is easy, and Russell is right that he shouldnt be expected to come up with the singular answer that has eluded so many great thinkers of the past,
but a clear plan of intentions and actual institutions is necessary when you jump forward, because the State does not wither away when the 'right' group grab power by violent means
As Georg Luckas noted in 1918 "Bolshevism rests on the metaphysical assumption that the bad can engender the good". That proposition was wrong. Lets not repeat it.