Sunday, November 13, 2011

Revolution of the Oppressed

It is a basic assumption of Marxism in general that revolution is the engine that drives structural change. Marx predicted that a global proletarian revolution would facilitate the post-capitalist phase of social evolution (his version of socialism). Neo-Marxists look toward fledgling revolutionary movements as the harbingers of salvation from capitalism.

Recently I was discussing with someone my belief that the world is on the verge of large-scale transformation. My conversation partner expressed doubt about the ability of current populist/revolutionary movements (MENA revolutions, Occupy Wall Street, etc.) to effect substantial change, while I insisted that they could very well intensify and merge into a single force.

But then I began to think about the assumptions I was making concerning revolutions. The last two major global transformations (1400s and 1700s) were organized in a significant way by the merchant class. This occurred because the merchant class lay outside of the relations of the dominant mode of production (focused on agriculture and hierarchical transfers of agricultural surpluses). Thus, the merchants were able to forge new relationships with the oppressed (peasant) class and the ruling class, as well as create new global webs of trade to support these relationships. In other words, the existence of a peripheral class with the ability to accumulate wealth is significantly responsible for the structural transformations that eventually resulted in the capitalist system.

It is important to note that there were peasant revolutions, and none of them were able to accomplish large-scale structural transformations. The revolutions that gave birth to capitalism, as Marx noted, were "bourgeois" revolutions - or, struggles between the bourgeoisie and the soon-to-be-overthrown ruling class. The bourgeoisie became the new ruling class.

So, if that is the case, why should the revolutions of the oppressed be any more successful this time around? There is just no historical precedent.

For Marx, a revolution of the oppressed was necessary because he believed that what followed capitalism had to be the apex of social evolution, which for him involved the elimination of all forms of exploitation and oppression. The only way this could occur would be if the oppressed themselves took a stand and dissolved all relations of domination. (If anyone else were to take charge of the revolution, they would simply become the new oppressors, much as the bourgeoisie did.)

But what if that which comes after capitalism is not a utopia free of exploitation? What if things get worse?

At the very least, I can say this: right now there does not appear to be a group of people akin to the merchant class who lie outside the bounds of capitalism, and who could initiate a political economic transformation of global scale. In this sense, I believe that Marx was right. It seems that there is no one else to take the revolutionary reins but the world's oppressed.

On the other hand, I do not believe, as Marx did, that this is a given. The oppressed might not actually try to transform the system, or at the very least they may be unsuccessful.

Furthermore, it seems possible that the ruling class could make an attempt at global transformation themselves, once they have finally exhausted (as they pretty much already have) the possibilities of the current system.

The conversation partner mentioned above mused that we have reached a terminal point, the end of the line. No possibility for any more transformative change. This is another possible scenario. I remain skeptical about the degree of stasis that can ever be achieved, however, as power is too disunified, contradictory, incompetent, and ultimately prone to undermining itself, to maintain any degree of stability. Already, one can see an increasing amount of disorder within the world system, including the gradual dissolution of its major geopolitical arrangements.

The bottom line is that, in this case, it is difficult to predict the future based on historical patterns, and there is no reason to assume that a proletarian revolution will or has to occur. I do, however, still feel confident in forecasting a long period of economic stagnation and political chaos. And as I view the world in which we live as a dystopia, from my point of view there is nowhere to go but up. Or... nowhere.

No comments:

Post a Comment