Capitalism, even in deep crisis, will never cease struggling to adapt and grow. It will not collapse or dismantle itself, until it destroys the planet and everyone on it. So it falls on us to destroy it. In destroying capitalism, we construct something new. Revolution is the total transformation of the way everything is produced, the social relations of domination that go along with it, and the ways of thinking that keep us trapped.
We need to understand our roles in the revolutionary process so that we may direct our energies to contribute the most we possibly can. The more intentional we are, the more effective we can be as consciously active agents for emancipation and social transformation.
There is no formula or plan to tell us what to do. We learn what we can from the millions of revolutionaries who have existed everywhere in the world throughout history, but each place and time is different, so whatever worked for them can’t automatically be applied to our circumstances. While relayed experiences, theories and observations are extremely useful, the revolution can’t be simply handed to us by others; we have to figure it out for ourselves.
We learn by doing. We can only master something if we practice it. This is true for playing a musical instrument, making furniture, or organizing for revolution and building a new society. Knowledge doesn’t come from the sky or from inside our heads; it comes from the real world and our experience of it. We make decisions about what to do, based on our interpretations of reality.
Many people call themselves revolutionaries because they possess and express “correct” beliefs, or write up the perfect programme or position paper. But no amount of study of theory, no amount of discussion, no collection of brilliant insights can ever change things — unless they are based in reality and are in turn implemented in reality. Theories that don’t come from practice can’t connect to reality. And they’re useless until they are actually USED. Knowledge is not an end in itself, but a guide to action, a tool to affect the material world. It is in use that it becomes embodied, and real.
Since none of us can destroy capitalism alone; we need to act collectively. The reason we need theory is to construct a shared frame of reference with which to share knowledge and experiences, so we can overcome what divides us, and organize our disparate spontaneous acts of resistance into a unified and powerful social force.
Any theoretical framework is a collection of interlocking concepts. Basic core concepts are only a starting point. There is no “right” beginning or end, and there are infinite layers. Reality is incomprehensibly complex; we need models that are relevant to our goal and help us stick to the path toward it, while avoiding getting bogged down or sidetracked.
Our theories are not original; all ideas come from our social milieu, conversations we have, what we experience and hear and read.
While unified in purpose, we are not identical. What each of us contributes reflects our individual strengths, limitations, and gaps in understanding. Each is needed. Diversity allows for resilience.
No one should monopolize revolutionary knowledge, or own it. It belongs to all of us. We should all learn to express and apply our collective knowledge in our own ways, to go out and replicate new circles, knitting nodal points into a network, cells into an organism. The whole point is to spread and organize. Our collective knowledge can remain alive and functioning only if we each keep writing, practicing, discussing, sharing our experiences. We must all become leaders, teachers, warriors.
If we find it difficult it’s not because we can’t, but because it goes against the training that capitalism has subjected us to from a lifetime of miseducation, of relentless lying to us about our intelligence and capacity and about reality itself, constructing its own frameworks in our heads from birth on. But there is no other way. No short cut. No opting out. If we don’t participate, we perpetuate the division of labor: limiting our own agency while leaving our fate in the hands of others.
None of us has the answer. We’re facing something completely new. We have guideposts, but no one has a formula. There isn’t one. The path can only come clear through process of collective struggle.
You are such an amazing writer! Thank you for this.
Hi Stephanie, First, thanks for your essay and your series of graphics, which cast light on many topics related to the development of a revolutionary movement.
Having said that, I must add that I have mixed feelings about your essay. On the one hand, your essay (and graphics) deserve wider circulation, and may help some activists break away from some kinds of stereotypical formulas about the nature of revolutionary politics. On the other hand, I feel like something is missing.
I see so many activists repeating the same mistakes that previous generations of activists have made. We need to speak out about this in a way that we have not (so far) found a way to do.
It is true, of course, that activists need experience in struggle. But there is also a need to sum up this experience. Otherwise, this experience will be lost (like the guy in Blade Runner said) like tears in the rain.
There is a need for revolutionary activists to work together collectively to draw conclusions from the experience of the last century. If we fail to do this, then we are, in the words of your essay, limiting our own agency and leaving our fate in the hands of others.
It is true, of course, that there is no formula for revolution. But there are _principles_ that are decisive to the recovery of our movement. We need to find ways to work together to sort out what these principles are.
(1) The first principle, in my view, is that we need a healthy, powerful and conscious movement that is aimed at the overthrow of the rule of capital–and the replacement of this rule with a political and economic system that is not based on commodity production.
(2) The second principle, in my view, is that we need an organization (or, somewhat equivalently, a system of highly connected organizations) that is/are capable of mobilizing large numbers of people for the goal outlined in the first principle.
The organization we need, in my view, must be (a) independent, (b) democratic and (c) open.
(a) Independent means, above all, independent of social democratic political trends which are experienced at seizing control of social movements and steering them into a ditch.
(b) Democratic means that members and supporters of this organization have the _right_ to communicate with one another, self-organize and openly mobilize public support to change the course of the organization when the organization starts to become subservient to social democracy (or otherwise begins to go off in the wrong direction)
(c) Open means that all activists have the _right_ to participate in the life and activity of the organization and openly struggle to determine the direction of the organization. (When I say “all” I am obviously excluding fascists and racists, etc.)
Many activists argue that the three requirements above are, in one way or another, mutually exclusive. For example, if the organization was both democratic and open, then it would, sooner or later, by flooded by social democrats, who would then be able to outvote the revolutionaries and steer the organization into the gutter (ie: liquidate its independent character).
But such a view is based on a narrow and formalistic idea of what it means for an organization to be democratic. The democratic nature of the organization we need is not based on the principle that whatever trend has a temporary majority has the right to silence the voice of everyone else–and then steer the organization into the gutter. Rather, the view of democracy we need must be based on the democratic rights of members and supporters to self-organize and openly struggle against the path to the gutter.
Social democrats can easily outnumber revolutionaries in conditions (like we see today) when consciousness is low–because the social democrats will be able to showcase all kinds of impressive achievements (because they are propped up by a not-so-hidden alliance with a section of the ruling one percent).
But in a protracted and open struggle, based on political transparency, in which the revolutionary section of the organization has the right to make use of each twist and turn of events to cast light on fundamental principles–the long-term trend will be for the revolutionary pole within this organization to gain support at the expense of the reformist pole.
(3) The question then comes up of how the organization we need will come into existence.
It seems clear to me that the organization we need will not spontaneously emerge out of the various struggles for partial demands. We need these struggles, of course, but they are not enough. So telling activists to gain experience (and engage in various worthwhile struggles for partial demands) is not enough. To tell this to activists is not necessarily giving them bad advice–but it misses the point. Because this is what activists are already doing–and if we want to see the development of a revolutionary movement–then we need something more.
We need a section of experienced activists who are dedicated to the creation of the organization we need and who also recognize that, in view of the existing crisis of theory in which activists are surrounded by bankrupt ideas (ie: rivers of shit) and few clear ideas–that open and public engagement is necessary to develop a public consensus on how the organization we need is likely to come into existence.
(4) And this brings me to my own experience with Jan and you and also with the Kasama organization which, for a period of time, captured the attention of many activists who wanted to see the development of a genuinely revolutionary organization that was based on genuinely healthy principles.
The Kasama organization, in my humble opinion, was doomed from day one. It was never based on a healthy concept of independence from social democracy. Mike Ely (in his mind) wanted to be independent from social democracy. But Mike was too close to the problem to see it with clarity. More than this, Kasama was not based on the principle of being democratic and open. In practice, this meant that activists like me were _prevented_ from communicating with others in the Kasama community and telling them that their ship was heading for the rocks. I am the only activist I know who analyzed the basic public Kasama documents and explained the nature of their problems and the fallacies they contained. But my analysis (many posts, many thousands of words) could only appear on my personal blog–because no mention of them was permitted on the Kasama site itself.
And now that the bankruptcy of the entire Kasama fiasco has reached a point where there is nothing left but a smoking hole in the ground–not a single former supporter of the Kasama community has demonstrated any sense of responsibility or accountability to the movement concerning any kind of public summation of what went wrong and why.
I have advanced my own view on how the organization we need will come into existence. The independent, democratic and open organization we need seems destined to emerge from a collective effort to create an independent, democratic and open news service. I have gotten nothing from you as far as engagement with this idea other than reflexive dismissal. From Jan I have gotten incomprehensible word salads.
So this is why I have mixed feelings about your essay. The things you say in your essay, of course, are true. But if we are determined to see the creation of an organization which is deserving of the attention and respect of the proletariat, then this determination must be reflected in our actions.
Respectfully,
Ben Seattle
https://warforquadranttwo.wordpress.com/weekly-review/