02.18.11
Revolutionary confusions
Out of revolution
The legacy of the French Revolution has forever confused the left (and in fact Marx and Engels sensed this after 1848, changing their tactics). The reason is that the differentiation of socialism from democratic action ended up creating a jackknife effect.
The question is simple: the only successful revolution of the period was the American. So that’s the prototype. But as Marx, and others, pointed out (to restate the howlingly obvious) this revolution was actually riddled with issues of class interest resulting in an ambiguous outcome: in fact the emergence in parallel of the capitalist economy confused everyone. So, as the Socialists/Marxists said, the revolution needs to be re-tuned to ‘real democracy’ which implies it would seem an element of socialist=democratic insight, that is, participation of all classes and a settlement that takes into account the confusing synchronous appearance of capitalism. Sounds simple, but the chaotification of the issues and the myth that some new kind of revolution should dispense with liberal rights and then with democracy created a monster of confusion and wasted effort.
Please note that the founders of the American system warned the future their work might not last very long, and in essence embedded revolution in their declarations. I am sorry, but I have to say it: the right to revolution is built into the Constitution.
If you say it isn’t then the original revolution/constitution is not valid either.
We need, not a sophistical Leninist conflagration, but a new American revolution that can free Americans from the gangster elite of capitalists that have destroyed democracy. That situation can’t be corrected by a leftist gangster elite of Leninists. That requires the revolutionary creation of a democratic/socialist republic, with a liberal set of rights, including rights against finance capital, etc, and a possible projection into the future of a communist final stage. But the latter has confused the issure. It is a big thing! Perhaps utopian. Note that the old left correctly (once) distinguished socialism (=liberal democracy) from the more complex ‘final stage’ (maybe) of communism. The progression to democratic revolution implying an element of socialist rights against capital is a sensible passage way to an unknown future, and represents at all stages a realizable and practical possibility that is not the dreaded ‘utopian’ so-called fallacy: the original American revolution proves it.
As the Wall Street gangster elite destroys all the exit points, and begins to destroy a whole society, it is important to consider if standard politics is finished. The founders we should note pretty clearly warned of this kind of situation, and even recommended a new revolution at frequent intervals.
Darwiniana » Repost: Revolutionary confusions said,
February 19, 2011 at 1:49 pm
[...] for ‘Revolutionary confusions’, plus links to lead up posts: http://darwiniana.com/2011/02/18/revolutionary-confusions/ ——————– Out of revolution The legacy of the French [...]
Darwiniana » Repost again: Revolutionary confusions said,
February 20, 2011 at 1:44 pm
[...] for ‘Revolutionary confusions’, plus links to lead up posts: http://darwiniana.com/2011/02/18/revolutionary-confusions/ ——————– Out of revolution The legacy of the French [...]
Darwiniana » Re/repost: Revolutionary confusions said,
February 21, 2011 at 1:10 pm
[...] for ‘Revolutionary confusions’, plus links to lead up posts: http://darwiniana.com/2011/02/18/revolutionary-confusions/ ——————– Out of revolution The legacy of the French [...]
Darwiniana » Final repost: Revolutionary confusions said,
February 23, 2011 at 1:43 pm
[...] for ‘Revolutionary confusions’, plus links to lead up posts: http://darwiniana.com/2011/02/18/revolutionary-confusions/ ——————– Out of revolution The legacy of the French [...]