Thought Experiments: How Could a Revolution Happen in the U.S.?
Posted by Mike E on August 31, 2008
Considerations on a Revolutionary Situation in the U.S.: Likely Triggering Factors, Potential Political Contours
by M. Upshaw
Let’s explore and debate the conceptual framework and scenarios of this little-known article. It suggests a number of hypothetical scenarios that could trigger deep political and social crisis in the U.S. — and that could open the way toward a deep de-legimization of the state and current order.
Let’s these scenarios in light of several things:
- An approach by revolutionaries of “hasten and await.” In the U.S. revolutionary political work is a process of preparation (in non-revolutionary times) for extreme and exceptional moments when acute crisis weakens the ruling structure and emboldens an emerging revolutionary people. by envisioning possible scenarios it is possible to imagine what is being “awaited” — and on that basis better grasp what is being “hastened.”
- This article is twenty years old. It was written in the 1980s when the world was heavily marked by the intense rivalry of the U.S. and the Soviet Union and where the “looking glass scenario” of world nuclear war was (inevitably) one of the major extreme events that revolutionaries and the people of the world had to contend with. The world is quite different, and the scenarios of our times would be (inevitably) different in significant ways. The point here is not to assume that these scenarios apply, but that a creative process of looking forward is needed.
- In recently reading a brief critique by Alan Badiou of Empire by Negri and Hardt, I was again provoked to think about how much revolutions arises from underlying structure and how much they arises from conjunctural “events.” How much can be anticipated and accumulated working on the deep divisions and contradictions of capitalism, and how much springs to life in ways that are unpredictable and unanticipated. A critical reading of this “Considerations” piece can contribute to an examination of that question (of the relationship of structure and conjuncture).
- It is also worth considering how the approach raised here is different from the view of revolution articulated by various forces today (Example: the movementist line, exemplified by david Solnit, that holds that the seizure of power is unnecessary, or the view of the RCP today which places the appreciation of an irreplacable leader as a key factor in creating revolutionary situations, and so on).
Perhaps needless to say, we are posting this piece as a contribution to critical discussions — not as any blanket endorsement of specific views or analyses in the article. It was originally submitted to Revolution magazine in Winter/Spring 1987. (This was a theoretical journal published in the 1980s and 90s by the RCP Publications in the U.S.)
N3wDay said
Hmm, it’s a bit long! I’ll check it out a little later.
Saoirse said
read this in a study grp years ago along with another avakian piece and some rev. fiction like endtime (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_time_(novel).
Nando said
Saoirse:
Help me tease out your point: Are you saying that the whole idea of “awaiting” crisis in the U.S. is similar to awaiting “end times” (in various religions)…. i.e. that it is fantasy?
If we exclude the eruption of extreme crisis from the radar — then the chances of rev are much lower.
My personal view is that extreme crises are rare (especially in the U.S., which unlike France or Russia hasn’t faced invasion). But that given the entwining of the world and the nature of capitalist contradictions — they are not impossible.
And certainly, no one expected the 1960s to erupt with the ferocity it did (in imp countries like the U.S., but also in France, Germany, Britain, Italy and parts of Eastern Europe)
We could discuss/debate whether there were openings for rev in the U.S. during 1960s. Certainly the U.S. closer to such a crisis than any time since the civil war… and there weere literally millions of people considering the possibility of making rev (however they conceived it). Whether things actually went that far, whether there was really a possible rev situation on the horizon in 1970s is a bit hard to gauge — since there was no organized force capable of bringing the many streams together. (I.e. something important was missing, we had been robbed of something important by previous events and by the difficulty of “telescoping” the various existing forces into a vanguard).
But whatever our ultimate evaluation of the 1960s — i think they show (at least) the POSSIBILITY of a rev crisis in a country like this.
I think there is an overestimation of the ways that it could “pop from several sides” — I have a view that such crisis has to be much more conjunctural and requires a bit of a “perfect storm” to come together. But that too is not just fantasy…. right?
Anon said
Nando,
Not to answer for Saoirse, but I think he meant the novel link, not the ‘end times’ link.
Not,
wikipedia(etc)/End_time
but rather,
wikipedia(etc)/End_time_(novel)
TellNoLies said
Is there a link for the Badiou piece on Hardt and Negri?
Mike E said
rosa is going to post it as its own post. Coming.
cassiusghost said
I will read the attached file, but the print quality is a little spotty.
A proper copy of the original magazine article is probably buried in some mildewed box in my basement. I remember reading it; however one glaring difference is the change in the objective situation since then, as noted in the prelude above.
The matter is resolved as to whether the U. S. is going into crisis as far as I can see … as a matter of fact while the “cold war” has been resolved; the new fundamental contradiction is no longer between imperialist powers, but between the developing countries standing on energy reserves and those countries without them.
China is the one wrenching problem for the great gamesters in imperialism.
While reading this old stuff I would encourage others to consider how we define the objective situation.
Maybe start with this site: http://tinyurl.com/3luoa
I will comment on the article as soon as I can finish reading and noting it.
Thano Paris said
I found this a really provoking peice. It made me reflect on the interview with Avakian that was done after the ‘92 Gulf war (”Could We Really Win?”). It also made me think about the whole 80’s analysis and the _Notes On Political Economy_ self-criticism.
There is so much here it’s hard to know where to start. I think that one angle which isn’t really explored explicitly here is a split in the US ruling class along the lines of that between the north and south during the civil war. I’m just thinking about this in light of the controversies around Ohio and Florida in the last 2 election cycles. I’m also reflecting on the experience of the EZLN with the Other Campaign and the fight between the PRI,and PRD with Calderon and AMLO.
In 2000, 2001 there was an invitation only anarchist conference where there was a panel on essentially this question. It was reported on in a Florida based anarchist paper called Onward!
The most salient aspect of what is written here for today is the section on the border and Mexico. Once a friend of mine with alot of experience doing anti-imperialist work told me that the importance of that is, that it’s (i.e. victories in oppressed nations) the only way fundamentally vistas will be opened up for us here in the 1st world.
Thano
arthur said
That link above intended for End Time (the novel) was broken and ended up pointing to an article about eschatological (apocalyptic) writings more generally than the specific example of the novel subtitled “Notes on the Apocalypse”.
Is somebody (else) intentionally making a subtle point about the inherently religious characteristics of subjective idealism generally and these “thought experiments” in particular?
Or does the connection just bubble up spontaneously as a natural flow of associations inherent in the nature of the discussion?
A vivid illustration of the dialects of chance and necessity…
The instant link to a business model for commercially exploiting the beliefs of end-timers by selling them survivalist literature was a nice touch too.
So far I’ve managed to wade right through the 1989 fantasies on nuclear war (instead of concrete analysis of the actually imminent collapse of the Soviet empire).
I hope that was the point being made – that this kind of “theorizing” doesn’t go anywhere and we have to help people still recovering from that kind of religious cultism learn how to concretely analyse concrete conditions.
Can anyone who has actually read the rest of it advise whether there was any point doing so?
karla said
” the new fundamental contradiction is no longer between imperialist powers, but between the developing countries standing on energy reserves and those countries without them.”
that is certainly a valid point. i would add that another scenario worth thinking about could be how the shortage of sustainable food and potable water will unfold.
Eddy said
Lenin’s theory of imperialism identifies four key developments within capitalism. First, monopoly as the concentration of production; second, that monopolies ‘have stimulated the siezure of the most imporant sources of raw materials’ (e.g. vertical inteegration); thirdly, the merging of industrial and banking capitals (e.g. finance capital); fourth, the global drive for spheres of influence, the export of capiotal, and sources of raw materials.
The present-day contention over raw materials – in this case, oil – is not new. In fact, both 20th C inter-imperialist wars, and especially WW2, turned in no small part on oil. (in the Pacific, the so-called ‘Middle East’, and the Caucusus).
Eddy said
addendum to above:
the ‘top ten’ oil importing and exporting countries (2004):
Importers (Mbbl/day)
* United States (11.8)
* Japan (5.3)
* China (2.9)
* Germany (2.5)
* South Korea (2.1)
* France (2.0)
* Italy (1.7)
* Spain (1.6)
* India (1.5)
* Taiwan (1.0)
Exporters (Mbbl/day)
* Saudi Arabia (8.73)
* Russia (6.67)
* Norway (2.91)
* Iran (2.55)
* Venezuela (2.36)
* United Arab Emirates (2.33)
* Kuwait (2.20)
* Nigeria (2.19)
* Mexico (1.80)
* Algeria (1.68)
Greatest Oil Reserves by Country (2005) (Mbbl)
* Saudi Arabia (262 billion barrels)
* Canada (179)
* Iran (126)
* Iraq (115)
* Kuwait (102)
* United Arab Emirates (98)
* Venezuela (77)
* Russia (60)
* Libya (39)
* Nigeria (35)
data collection attributed to David Workman as published on internationaltrade.suite101.com.
arthur said
Thanks for that insight.
Now I understand why Saudi Arabia, Norway, Canada, Iran and Russia lead a bloc lined up against the other bloc led by the USA, China, Japan and Germany.
On my planet its different so I would never have understood how things are on your planet without this theoretical insight.
Eddy said
(I fear the table below will be mangled in translation, otherwise I’d include figures for revenues, net profits, and profit as % of assets.)
Add to the previous Addendum the following ‘top 20′ petroleum refining concerns by return on revenues.
Each of these concerns participates in ‘joint-venture’ exploration and drilling concerns (cartels) that operate in the aforementioned ‘exporting’ countries.
1 Petronas Malaysia
2 Petrobras Brazil
3 Rosneft Oil Russia
4 Lukoil Russia
5 China National Petroleum China
6 Exxon Mobil US
7 ENI France
8 Reliance Industries India
9 Statoil Norway
10 Petro-Canada Canada
11 ConocoPhillips US
12 Total France
13 Marathon Oil US
14 Chevron US
15 Formosa Petrochemicals Taiwan
16 Royal Dutch Shell Netherlands
17 BP UK
18 PTT Thailand
19 OMV Group Austria
20 Hess US
This is only a partial description, of course, but it indicates where the petroleum sector sits in regard to contention and cooperation among some of the bigger imperialists. Of course, this simple table does not describe the extent to which capital has been exported, the compositions of the various cartels, and so on.
(c.f. Royal Dutch Shell is an Anglo-Dutch monopoly with operations in dozens of ‘developing’ countries – e.g. Nigeria, Angola, Indonesia, etc. – and with various concessions to explore, drill and extract those resources. Some of those neo-colonial relationships are identified above as ‘exporter’ nations.)
I am not suggesting that petroleum is the only or even most important fulcrum on which inter-imperialist contention pivots, but it has certainly supported active contention recently and over the last century. Neither is petroleum solely gasoline production; the petrochemical sector is very large and supplies many other sectors.
It is also, quite obviously, a very active sphere contributing to inter-imperialist contention right now, framing several actual and/or potential ‘flash points’.
karla said
when i think of how revolution could happen in the u.s. i often consider the many contradictions inherent in the food and water supply and wonder if and how such contradictions could, ultimately work in our favor. there are so many potential scenarios w/regard to food and water (both separate issues in their own right, but joined here for this “thought experiment”), that are currently festering which could become exacerbated by a multitude of factors, erupt, and pose serious challenges for the rulers…
cassiusghost said
Eddy is hesitant and hedges his bet on the pivotal nature of petroleum with:
[quote] I am not suggesting that petroleum is the only or even most important fulcrum on which inter-imperialist contention pivots, but it has certainly supported active contention recently and over the last century. Neither is petroleum solely gasoline production; the petrochemical sector is very large and supplies many other sectors. [end]
I am more likely to throw down my chips on this bet about petroleum being a “pivot” point where successive, an irreversible series of shocks, leading to a revolutionary shift in the ability of the people to understand and want a radically better and equitable society. However as in all revolutionary situations, the twists and turns could lead to much worse and more repressive regimes.
Petroleum derived energy is by far the most efficient source, bar none, unfortunately – over the next decade, some hedge by saying a few more (like the highly prejudiced oil companies)decades exist before vast dislocations and shortages happen. I am not so confident that the spiral toward a decline in “peak oil” will be so predictable. Speculation capital is quickly causing wide fluctuations in the commodity markets making accurate tracking difficult,
Yesterday, if you follow the tinyurl link (comment #7) I inserted above, the highly alarmist site does follow closely the perambulations of the international oil market. Other sites are more studious and thorough, but let’s for the sake of a thought experiment use the “news” … Russia is threatening to turn off the pipelines feeding EU (and NATO) member countries over the Georgia fracas. It’s not the first time, Russia did curtail pipeline shipments before just a few years ago, during winter and every affected EU member fell in line. That was not a thought experiment, it was a very real shift – a shift that U. S. imperialism could not control.
Also, readers, if you note the dates that have changed subsequent in this thread. June has been a long time on the energy calender for the world. Now we are witnessing a rather hollow and opportunistic attempt on the part of the energy hungry U.S. imperialist class in seeking to foment a “new cold war” hysteria among our consumption addicted citizenry.
Recently economist, J. K. Galbraith commented that a simple nationwide trend to stop filling up our gas tanks, could take the wide swings out of gasoline prices. He’s correct … the refineries and tanks of the suppliers would back up and enough of a surplus would take the speculative heat out of market forces that are driving ever upwards. However even that and the release of the US national petroleum reserve, even the desperate campaign driven slogans of “drill more” of Obama and McCain, will not curtail the prices from driving higher and higher on into the next four year terms.
A single shock of a very small military spark, like has happened after the Georgian aggression, can set off another rise in oil prices in the market. It’s called “volatility” for good reason.
The one propaganda campaign that the imperialists are counting on is their ability to steer public opinion. They are able, for now to steer the “us” and the “we” into supporting their continued wars, any wars … to maintain our outrageously pampered and priveliged life-styles in the U.S.
Yet, as the disparities between distribution of such bare necessities; like water, food and yes even gas to work or oil to heat become more and more apparent – people will come alive.
They are coming alive already, as witnessed in the shift toward the public pushing the rulers toward “energy independence” even the dull and dim witted and short sighted “drill more holes here” pledge of the Republicans registers strongly among the people.
The simple fact is, petroleum and it’s use is intimately intertwined; even on the molecular scale of our everyday commodities – and dependent on maintaining civilization as we know it today. It is all about to change, will the revolutionaries understand and act upon that understanding?
Just as the short time between post #7 to this new series of comments on the “thought experiments” about revolution reveal, look at the world and how quickly it changes when viewed through the prism of energy demands, and what we are willing to put up with from our capitalist based governments worldwide to have that energy.
As the old man, V. I. Lenin once said (I think) “we must be as radical as reality.” We must also observe that we are NOT the leaders the people have been waiting for, yet.
I remain very confident that in less than twenty years, many revolutionary situations will arise, both in the U.S. and in the world, because of the pivotal uses and shortages derived from the use of petrochemicals in every aspect of “modern” 21st civilization.
The “free market” of predatory capitalism is not in anyway able or prepared to deal with this one fundamental contradiction in energy. Couple that with “state-capitalism” and climate changes and we have some very real challenges ahead, not even decades away. And to keep in our memory of the old RCP slogan, “Revolution in the 80s – Go for it!” we are wasting our time away.
We need to dig in, sow seeds broadly and create public opinion for a revolution to seize power. Pardon the food centered puns, but consolidating cadre and accepting no casualties is cardinal at this point today. The election madness will subside … but the energy shocks will not … and neither should we relent toward building a mass base toward revolutions, worldwide.
cassiusnow said
I did miss one important point … it’s called by the capitalists “demand destruction.”
It is quite possible that more predatory members of the imperialists decide that bombing significant sectors of the world’s populations – including those standing on energy reserves – into “the stone age” will be their last ditch solution. It would reduce worldwide consumption and destroy demand, allowing for price drops, or at the least a longer plateau of price stability.
I should say the neoliberal and neocon fascists amongst the US ruling class. Oil companies like stability, so this is problematic, but at some certain point when the reserves dwindle to the bitter end. Who knows?
I seriously doubt that Russia, Europe or for that matter, even China would do so, and would surely retaliate if the US did engage in such genocides as policy.
Michael Klare’s latest book is a must read for all on this thread, BTW.
Eddy said
Yes, and he also cautions mapping ‘crisis’ onto ‘consuption of refined petroleum’.
Rather, what I think my snapshot survey of capital concentrations suggests is that some of the biggest monopolies in the US are organized on oil extraction and petrochemicals, but those monopolies are not ‘up and coming’ compared to some of their competitors. The ongoing efforts by these (more) moribund formations to reinforce their ‘vertical integration’ is part of the push for trans-Caucusus pipelines and oil platforms in the newly-opened Arctic circle, where both Russia and the US are scrambling to establish claims.
These assets (these ‘national interests’) could play tripwire to an even bigger inter-imperialism scramble.
That was the intent of my posts above.
compare the earlier list of monopolies by profgitability with this list ranked by sheer size (in revenue). Note that while Exxon is the largest by revenue it is sixth by profitability, and that while Lukoil ranks 17th in revenues it is 4th regarding its rate of return.
1 Exxon Mobil US
2 Royal Dutch Shell Netherlands
3 BP UK
4 Chevron US
5 ConocoPhillips US
6 Total France
7 Sinopec China
8 China National Petroleum China
9 ENI France
10 Pemex Mexico
11 Valero Energy US
12 Petrobras Brazil
13 Statoil Norway
14 Repsol YPF Spain
15 Marathon Oil US
16 SK South Korea
17 Lukoil Russia
18 Petronas Malaysia
19 Nippon Oil Japan
20 Indian Oil India
TellNoLies said
Just a note on “End Time.” I don’t think Saoirse was making any suggestions about religion. It just happens to be the name of the novel.
Its an anarchist novel envisioning a revolutionary scenario unfolding in the Bay Area. It came out in late-1993 and included prescient references to a Zapatista-style insurgency in Mexico that was the object of an unpopular US war. IIRC the story revolves around a UC Santa Cruz anarcho-sympathizer who accidentally obtains a nuclear warhead against the background of militant anti-war protests and a soldiers revolt in Oakland. It also had a fair amount of gratuitous sex scenes that were somewhat off-putting.
Aside from the nuke and the sex though, it was an interesting scenario.
I was really influenced by the article from Revolution when it appeared. What attracted me in it was what I also found attractive in “End Time” and a similar English anarchist novel that appeared at the same time. Marge Piercy’s “Dance the Eagle to Sleep” is a similar take on an earlier period. The appeal is the willlingness to get into the details of what an actual revolution might entail. The dangers in such exercises are obvious, but I think they are still importnat more for their challenge to our imaginations than for the particulars of the scenarios. They are a good way of getting a whole lot of factors on the table and posing the question of how a “hot mix” is likely to emerge.