ecological crisis and third revolutionnew-compass.net/sites/new-compass.net/files/ec2014 g1... ·...
Post on 03-Oct-2020
18 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Ecological Crisis and Third Revolution
Metin Guven
Ecological Crisis
Current ecological crisis is becoming more visible every day. Even though it appears in many forms
such as deforestation, salination of soil, destruction of ecocommunities due to mining, industrialization
and new energy projects; the most critical one seems to be global warming. Most people experience
various outcomes of global warming or follow them through mass media.
World elites suggest that technological innovations and environmental reforms will restrict global
greenhouse gas emissions and stop adverse effects of global warming. In fact these measures only
slows down emissions in developed countries marginally; the actual outcome of these measures is
mostly moving the sources of greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries to developing
countries(1). They are not effective because global elites try to implement measures compatible with
economic growth through investments by multinational corporations. However the main goal of these
corporations is more profit and they move industrial production to countries with the lowest cost
regardles of environmental impact and greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions need to be radically reduced to stop adverse effects of global warming. This
requires not only implementing technological innovations, but also a radical decrease in current
economic activity through decentralization which is incompatible with capitalism. This means global
warming cannot be stopped without a radical transcendence of capitalism.
1
Most of the increase in global greenhouse gas emissions in recent decades came from rapid
urbanization with shopping malls and commercial high rise buildings, and increased transportation due
to this urbanization. Political participation is very critical to reverse this trend as people need to decide
how to create decentralized cities and rebuild their communities.
Even though these ideas seem utopian, other options are either not promising a solution or authoritarian
top down approaches such as population reduction. However, popular participation of such a radical
transformation can only be achieved through a social revolution, since one requires to change power
structures to a libertarian one to remove the privileges of ruling classes and corporations.
Therefore, it is time to examine historical examples of social revolutions that allowed direct
participation to political decision making; then the possibility of such a revolution and the potential to
create a free society which can take real measures to stop global warming and find solutions to other
ecological problems as well.
A Modern Revolution?
When the concept of revolution is in agenda many thinkers only address the revolutions of the modern
period. However, the objectives of modern revolutions such as freedom and equality, were formulated
in ancient times and drawn out for others. In "From Urbanization to Cities", Murray Bookchin speaks
of the changes that took place in ancient Athens:
"Power ceased to be the prerogative of a small, well-born stratum of the population. It became a citizen
activity. Athen's historic calendar is marked by seething upsurges of the people, startling fluctuations
2
between aristocratic rule, tyranny, limited popular government, until, by the latter half of the fifth
century B.C., Athenian political life stabilized around a face-to-face democracy of the most radical
kind." (2)
To indicate this unprecedented development in recorded history Bookchin continues as follows:
"Later ideals of citizenship, even insofar as they were modeled on the Athenian, seem more unfinished
and immature than the original... there were impressive attempts to create patterns of civic freedom that
approximated the democratic polis in medieval city-states and in the American and French revolutions.
These attempts were usually intuitive." (3)
Thinkers that have engaged in the issues of modernization haven't developed ideas on the concept of
citizenship to the extent of the Athenians. As a result, the criteria of the success and completeness of a
revolution can be substantially attributed to the understanding of direct democracy in Ancient Athens.
By these criteria, Bookchin considers the revolutions of recent times as incomplete without a Third
Revolution.
The concept of Third Revolution and these approaches will be expanded upon in the following
sections. At this point, it should be emphasized that a revolution can only be comprehended as a
process rather than an event occurring in an instant. If we are speaking of social revolution, not only of
political revolution, a revolution needs to contain different revolutions within itself and change the
social life in a fundamental way by creating new values and attitudes in the period following itself.
Direct Democracy in Ancient Athens
3
Direct democracy in ancient Athens emerged as a result of a long period of riots and social conflicts,
which were resolved by political transformations that we can not enter in details here. This democracy
can be distinguished from the earlier tribal democracies, not only by their detailed recordings on the
concept of citizenship but also the development of a democracy that transcends blood ties. Initially, the
former tribal councils were revitalized as institutions with only legislative power but not the power to
enact and execute laws. The enslavement of Athenians was prohibited and all Athenians were given the
right of citizenship. This democratization process ultimately resulted in new socially constructed tribes
to include all citizens for the functioning of democracy, and in this way the different sections of society
were able to express themselves by participating in political decision making process.
The system that had been functioning for decades, consisted of a public assembly that was open to the
participation of all citizens and from this an executive council was elected by lot. The council (boule),
had five hundred members elected annually by lot who were responsible for carrying out and
implementing the laws and decisions made by the public assembly. In order to execute the decisions
made, boards of various administrative duties were formed under the council. The idea of Athenian
citizenship meant that every citizen would be able to take a role in policy making and administration.
The direct democracy relied on citizens that acquired administrative skills such as reasoning and
problem solving through discussions and debates in popular assembly.
"Athenians assembled as an ekklesia not only to formulate policies and make judgments; they came
together to mutually educate each other in the ability to act justly and expand their civic ideals of right
and wrong. The “political process,” to use a modern cliché, was not strictly institutional and
inexhaustible, everyday “curriculum” for intellectual, ethical, and personal growth-paideia that fostered
4
the ability of citizens to creatively participate in public affairs, to bring their best abilities to the service
of the polis and its needs, to intelligently manage their private affairs in accordance with the highest
ethical standards of the community"(4)
Ten percent of the population of ancient Athens were men with citizenship who could participate in the
direct democracy. Wider participation was not permitted due the lack of citizenship rights for women,
slaves, and immigrants. It is clear that this ancient form of democracy could not be considered as a
model for today. However, it would not be fair to dismiss the democracy of ancient Athens purely on
this note. It should not be forgotten that the slave trade in the Middle East had been established over a
thousand years, and wasn't outlawed in Europe till the beginning of the 19th century and the United
States until 1865. Women's equal participation in political life was achieved only in the 20th century.
Therefore, modern revolutions have held the same limited "equality" and concept of participation.
If we were to look into the daily life of the time, the participation of males in politics was largely due to
the responsibility of housekeeping and raising children being given to women, and the use of slavery
especially in services and also production, even though slavery was mostly not concentrated in large
production units. Women were also responsible for the management of domestic slaves which were the
majority of the slave population. Ancient Greece, unlike Roman did not have latifundias (large farms
based on slave labor). Most people were self-sufficient, relying on the production of their farms and
homes. The people of the antiquity had much simpler lives as garments were produced domestically
alongside many consumer goods we purchase from markets today. Agricultural production was mostly
made possible through the labor of the farmer citizens. However, the lack of mechanical devices neither
for domestic or agricultural use, resulted in lower production and poverty for those who didn't own
slaves. The most important reason for this, was due to to the burden caused by the necessity to defend
5
Athens against aggressive empires and neighboring enemies. The Persian Empire was a constant threat
to Greek cities. Athens was at war with it's southern neighbor, Sparta most of the time. Sparta's
production relied on the enslavement of their indigenous population and their citizens dedicated almost
all of their time to war preparation. The wealthy Athenians supported war efforts by providing horses,
those moderately well-to-do brought armor, while poor ones worked as foot soldiers or rowers. (5)
Immigrants generally worked in the trades and crafts. Within the understanding of the time, a person
relying on the market could not make political decisions independently because they sold their products
and labor. The vested interests of the marketplace were independent of and contradicted the interests of
the entire community. Those engaged in trading were susceptible to prioritize the interests of the
market over the community. Despite our notion of “democracy” today and how it is contradictory with
this approach, we should recognize that a true democracy can only be achieved in such a way. The
tension between the common interests of community and the economic self-interests of the individual
cause people to ignore the short and long term interests of the community. The Athenian ideal of a
citizen was considered to be economically self-sufficient so that they would be autonomous
participants in political decision making. It is presupposed that the reason trade and craft jobs in ancient
Athens were largely left to immigrants and slaves was due to this approach.
Bookchin expresses this in the following sentence: "In fact many Greeks would have seen even wealthy
tradesmen as clients of their buyers and highly skilled craftsmen, artists, and poets as dependents of a
fickle market for their products. To be free in Athens meant very little if one's basic needs were not
satisfied within mutualistic group of self-sufficient producers... No client, however well-off, could
render a judgment or reason freely without deferring to exogenous authorities and interests on whom
his welfare depended." (6)
6
Modern Age and the French Revolution
Athenian democracy collapsed due to the invasion by the Macedonians and then the Romans. Direct
democracy in subsequent periods, first appeared in rising Italian cities prior to the Renaissance, then
spread to Central Europe, the Netherlands, and its surroundings. However, in the intervening centuries,
the town and country thoroughly dissociated from each other as the countryside had been heavily
dominated by feudalism in Europe. A very large section of the city consisted of poor citizens who did
not take part in the democracy. These democracies weren't as inclusive as the Athenian democracy;
moreover as the conflict between the enriched and empowered bourgeoisie and the other sections of
society grew, this lead to their transformation to republics. Those cities that were ruled by
representative council lost their significance with the emergence of nation-states.
Nation states initially were under the arbitrary rule of the king. As bureaucracies introduced by the king
grew, taxes to finance the government became a heavy burden on the people. Poverty effected large
portions of the population, both in cities and the country side. Even though feudal serfdom was no
longer in effect, feudal obligations to the nobility posed a great burden on the peasants who were not in
possession of enough land. European revolutions of the modern era were a reaction against the parasitic
upper classes and the poverty that resulted by them, despite also raising forgotten freedoms of the past.
Those forgotten freedoms of the past were elaborated by intellectuals of upper classes. This section of
society were seen as a mobocracy so instead they adopted the appearance of a representative republic.
The wars France fought during the 18th century lead to a crisis as the kingdom fell under huge debt and
needed the revenue of new taxes. The resistance of the nobility against these taxes, obligated the King
7
to call upon the estate generals which hadn't been assembled since 1614. This assembly consisted of
representatives of the nobility, the clergy, and the rest of the classes (Third Estate) who were elected
separately and gathered together, and sometimes independently. Election of representatives of the
nobility and clergy were an easier process. However, because the Third Estate represented a much
broader segment of society, election was very indirect (by the election of indirect voters). The people
responded by mobilizing for the elections, as complaints and demands were voiced at the meetings and
the elected representatives were asked to take these demands to the assembly.
The list of complaints and requests included: "All agreed that the Estate General should destroy royal
and ministerial despotism that there was a need for a constitution that would restrict the king's rights
that a national assembly, which would meet periodically, should be created." (7) Indeed, the Third Estate
committed themselves to writing a constitution which would restrict the king's authority when they
assembled. The other two Estates provided significant support which lead to the emergence of the
National Assembly.
The tension between the King and people waiting for a constitutional monarchy resulted in an uprising
in Paris. The uprising of the Bastille on 14 July, 1789 consisting of the release the prisoners and was a
signifier of the break of the King's power, and was considered to be the first Revolution. Even though,
King Louis XVI had lost power, he took an uncompromising stance on the French Constitution in the
years following, moreover he secretly collaborated with the monarchies of Austria and Prussia who
were at war with France.
Meanwhile, in rural areas, villagers were rioting, burning castles, and destroying archives documenting
feudal privileges. The section councils of Paris who elected the delegates of the Third Estate continued
8
to meet regularly after they fulfilled their task. There were 60 sections and their councils started
organizing and mobilizing people. As the sections radicalized further, on many occasions they
organized in the masses to march (journée) to the National Assembly to force the implementation of
their decisions. Each journée put the revolution into a more radical stance. The journée that took place
on August 10th, 1792 resulted in the massacre of the the King's Swiss Guard and the formal end of the
monarchy. Thereby, the second revolution began.
Following these events, a new election was held and the National Convention assembled on September
20th. Much of the Convention revolved around the tension between Jacobins who mostly represented
Paris and Girondins who represented the regions. In the beginning, Girondins who were moderate ruled
the country as the majority. However, accusing them of treason, the Jacobins who were supported by
the mass mobilization of sections of Paris liquidated Girondins and took power after the siege and
threat on the Convention by the journeé in June 2nd, 1793.
Direct Democracy in the French Revolution
It would be better to look at the dynamics behind the events that were summarized in the previous
section. Some prefer to think, that the French revolution (or revolutions in general) occurred
spontaneously. Although they weren't top-down organizations, the Revolution largely depended on
organizations which initially gathered to elect representatives to the Third Estate. These organizations
formed from councils that were originally designed to gather complaints and demands then disperse,
they then transformed into organized structures in order to fulfill the demands of the people. Prior to
that, clubs discussed and spread Republican and egalitarian ideas actively. These opinions were
discussed widely in cafes and thousands of leaflets were published.
9
Another controversial issue of the French Revolution, was it being a bourgeoisie revolution. From the
point of many perspectives Bookchin would not agree. First of all, the opposition toward the
bourgeoisie was as strong as that toward the parasitic feudal class. Bookchin summarizes the economic
reasons:
"The guild-masters, were obliged to care their apprentices and journeymen, and villages as a whole
were expected to care their infirm or impoverished residents. Capitalism, at least in the commercial
towns, threatened to shred these time-honored relationships, offering in their place the cold indifference
of a free market economy without any public responsibility. Both artisan and peasant were placed at the
mercy of heartless employers, grain hoarders, speculators and land grabbers, who ruthlessly raised
prices during shortages and profited enormously from the misfortunes of the poor."(8)
Furthermore, the bourgeoisie in towns and country were just as scared of the revolution as feudal lords,
as shown by the formation of militia forces to suppress the rural uprisings. The bourgeoisie
representatives in the National Assembly would not have hesitated to negotiate and cooperate with the
King had the citizens of Paris not organized and marched. Despite not investing nearly as much effort,
the bourgeoisie were able to gain as much as the peasant from the liquidation of feudalism.
Until the Second Revolution in1792, sections of Paris were trying to legitimize themselves while
organizing journées which brought the revolution forward. Neither the National Assembly nor the
moderate Paris Commune of that time wanted the strengthening of sections. By reducing the number of
section from 60 to 48, it was thought that they would be weakened. However, through the discussion of
political issues the decisions they came to and the action they took, they were not hindered. Each
10
section was developing a distinctive local culture. Some radicalized further, while sections which
included affluent neighborhoods remained moderate.
With the abolition of the monarchy, the Paris Commune restructured itself. The Commune no longer
attempted to be a force on the sections, but instead became an administrative structure which provided
coordination for the implementation of decisions made by the sections. Parallel to this, the popular
assemblies of sections became open to the participation of all citizens by removing previous
restrictions. Since the First Revolution, committees were formed to organize aspects of daily life such
as food and safety. Until the Second Revolution the members of these committees were appointed by
the Commune, then sections began to elect committee members. Thus, a direct democracy similar to
the one in ancient Athens was implemented across all of Paris. If we consider the population of Paris at
this time to be 600 thousand, a much larger community of citizens were then able to experience direct
democracy.
As the war between the European monarchies and France developed, the National Guard of Paris
responded by moving to the frontier. This left the sections of Paris with the responsibility of their
defense. As a result, each section created its own militia. The militia commanders were elected by the
section assemblies which were open to all citizens. New committees were formed for the purposes of
dealing with poverty, producing ammunition, and providing other supplies.
However, while sections of Paris were becoming more effective, the monarchist reactionaries organized
to crush the Republic. With the rural uprisings lead on by monarchists, the dual power could not
continue in Paris for long. The liquidation of the Girondins on the 2nd of June, 1793 took place during
these circumstances. With the support of the sections, the Jacobins liquidated the Girodines from the
11
Convention and in the following period executed by guillotine not only the reactionaries, but also those
that opposed them. The radical leaders of the sections were jailed or suppressed if they hadn't been sent
to guillotine. The radicals foresaw this scenario before the 2nd of June, and strove for a Third
Revolution by working to eliminate the Convention to make the direct democracy of the sections the
only ruling power. However, they were not able to succeed in this endeavor. Later attempts for the
Third Revolution failed, leading to the deterioration of efforts and the end of revolts against the power
of the central government. The central government became increasingly authoritarian and transformed
into a military regime. At the end of this process, Napoleon came to power with a coup and declared
the French Empire.
Russian Revolution of 1917
Even though the 19th century witnessed many revolutions, none of them could make a lasting impact
as great as the French Revolution. Rather than aspiring for Third Revolution, these revolutions had the
limited impact of continuing the prospects of the French Revolution, like the liquidation of the feudal
structure and accelerated development of basic democratic rights. Perhaps, the French revolution in
1848 brought hope of a Third Revolution with the raising of red flags and loudly voiced socialist ideas
for the first time. The start of the 20th century brought new hope, through the bottom-up organization of
the people and in the decision making of their own lives. Meanwhile, industrialization spread all over
Europe and factory workers in the urban population became the overwhelming majority. In other
words, the period of artisan dominated society which was the stage of the French Revolution became
history.
In this sense, the Russian Revolution of 1905 was important with the emergence of the Soviet
12
organization. Factory workers sent their elected representatives to form the St. Petersburg Workers
Soviet, which then played a central role in organizing strikes and other actions. Despite the fact that the
Tsar police didn't allow the organization of the Workers' Soviet they appeared in some other cities.
The 1905 revolution had a significant influence on the people despite its suppression. Germany rapidly
industrialized before the First World War, while Russia had yet to industrialize and was caught
unprepared. After the cold winter, food shortages caused the culmination of unrest in the masses. In
February 1917, strikes spread across St. Petersburg followed by revolts by women, workers, and
soldiers who supported them, this lead to the end of Tsarist autocracy. At this point, Mensheviks called
upon workers to chose factory representatives to create the St. Petersburg Soviet. Even though the
Bolsheviks in the city committee weren't open to this course of action, the Bolsheviks in Vyborg
supported it.
The Mensheviks considered the Soviet as a tool to support a more liberal bourgeois government.
However, the Soviets began to form in other towns and villages where they took hold of responsibilities
such as food distrubution and security through civilian militia. Thus, a dual power structure occurred.
Factory committees were formed parallel to the Soviets. These committees were composed of the most
politicized workers and became a strong influence on decisions made on the organization of
production.
In August the reactionary general Kornilov entered St. Petersburg and attempted to take contorl of the
city, the Bolshevik's active contributions in the resistance increased their support. In September, in
contrast to the compromising policy of the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks advocated policies opposed to
war and in support of furthering the revolution, enabling them to seize the majority in the Soviet
13
workers. Meanwhile, left SRs (Socialist Revolutionaries) were gaining more support as peasent Soviets
were radicalized. The left SRs held the majority of the St. Petersburg Soldiers' Soviet.
In October, it was time for the Bolsheviks to implement their slogan, "All power to the Soviets", which
was adopted from Lenin's proposal before the Bolsheviks and left SRs had won Soviet elections in
most regions of Russia. Although the Central Committee opposed the suggestion of overthrowing the
provisional government headed by Kerensky at first, through the process of adopting Lenin's proposal
they mobilized in order to grant full power to the Soviet. The 7th of November (old calendar Oct. 25),
was the date The Russian Congress of Soviets would gather and was chosen as the best time to act
upon this decision.
Prime Minister Kerensky attempted to suppress the the Bolshevik press the day before the second All-
Russian Congress of Soviets, causing the mobilization of the revolutionary militia forces as they seized
key government buildings that night. Kerensky fled the capital in response. These developments were
the hallmark of the next day's convention. The Mensheviks and Right SRs protested the overthrowing
of the provisional government and opposed the acquisition of power by the Soviets. Through the
support of the Left SR delegates the Bolsheviks proclaimed the new shift in power.
In the following days, the tension between the provisional government and the Soviet power turned to a
civil war as Kerensky mobilized military forces against the Soviets. Meanwhile, the peace with
Germany led to political disputes. The disputed Bolshevik peace policies, made way to the removal of
opposing parties especially the SRs from the Soviets and their suppression. On November 1920, the
Red Army ended the civil war with a decisive victory over the White Army. In the meantime, war
communism led to a slump in production in both agriculture and industry, and the collapse of the
14
economy.
Soviet Revolution and Direct Democracy
Even though the Soviets shifted power from the provisional government to directly elected
representatives of councils by the people, in actual fact a widespread direct democracy wasn't
experienced. The Soviets initially aimed to move in the direction of developing a direct democracy, but
later on, especially in large cities, usually delegates elected by people appointed an executive
committee and this committee made all the political decisions. When an executive comittee ignored the
trend among the people, they were forced to hold a new election. The Soviets didn't have a significant
role in the daily lives of workers, peasants, or soldiers.
However, the most radical segments of society created directly democratic institutions in different
areas. Factory committees were among them and were especially active in the Vyborg region of St.
Petersburg. These committees were elected by all workers working in a factory. The factory committees
decided on the organization of production and all matters involving the workers. Workers sought advice
and appealed for help on all issues at the committee and they were very influential on decisions on
labor recruitment and layoffs. Some of the factories abandoned by employers were completely
controlled by their committees. The most critical decisions were made by the participation of all
workers at meetings.
After the October Revolution, factory committees which had already attempted to form city wide
organizations now hoped to create more effective ones. However, the Bolsheviks made the factory
committees ineffective and subordinated the unions and Soviets in their control, sometimes by force
15
when needed. By 1921, strikes arose due to economic difficulties and political ineffectiveness caused
by Bolshevik policies, but were brutally suppressed.
Another example of direct democracy was the organization of the Kronstadt sailors. Kronstadt was the
military base at which the most radical soldiers who drove the revolution forward were positioned.
Important political decisions were made together by discussing and voting. The Kronstadt base had
turned into a self-managing commune. In February 1921, with growing strikes and their subduing by
the Bolsheviks, the Kronstadt sent a group of delegates to closely examine the situation in St.
Petersburg, that would lead to an attempted Third Revolution. The observations of the delegates were
discussed and resulted to the formulation of 15 demands which were approved by an overwhelming
majority. Among their demands were the freedom of press, expression, and assembly for workers,
peasants, anarchists, socialists, and left SRs; new Soviet elections were to be preceded by free electoral
propaganda.
In response to these demands, the Bolsheviks arrested the Kronstadt delegates, gave an ultimatum, and
prepared for an assault. Indeed, the Kronstadt base was attacked by 60,000 soldiers, before they had the
oppurtunity to organize with the workers of St. Petersburg in solidarity. The Kronstadt resistance lasted
12 days, thousands of people from both sides ultimately gave their lives or were injured, 6 to 8
thousand insurgents took refuge in Finland but the thousands were arrested. Thus, a Third Revolution
which could transform the Soviets into a direct democracy was completely suppressed, making way for
the Stalinist dictatorship that eventually claimed the lives of the majority of Bolshevik leaders.
Conclusion/Discussion
16
The revolutionary process that lead to the Ancient Athenian democracy began from uprisings in
response to aristocracies that indebted impoverished small farmers through mortgage, those who failed
to pay back their dues had their land seized, were even enslaved and sold abroad. However, at that time
poverty and misery were not as widespread as it was during the French Revolution for example.
Perhaps, the fact immiseration due to class differences wasn't as widespread or grounded and was only
an onset, allowed greater possibilities for the formation of democratic institutions. More importantly,
finding a solution to the problem of debt and the prohibition of slavery due to debt made it possible to
render the prospect of establishing a democracy. The revolutions of the modern era, involving deeper
class conflicts, have been unable to resolve the poverty and misery of their time, this reveals an
important distinction from the revolutionary transformation of ancient Athens.
The exception is the American revolution which aimed to gain independence from Britian. Unlike other
revolutions, it didn't arise from class conflict or poverty. The rising bourgeoisie at that time was
decisive in shaping the newly formed state. The United States was born not as a democracy, but as a
republic in which property owners elect representatives. After granting universal sufferage the United
States claimed itself a “democracy”. On the other hand, although the Soviet revolution ultimately
eliminated poverty, it came with the political suppression of freedoms, as the entire country
transformed into an environment resembling a labor camp. All decisions were made by a narrow
section of elites that composed the leadership of the Communist Party which ultimately led to the
collapse of the Soviet statist system.
However, as stressed in all of Bookchin's analyses, the culture one identifies with and how they view
themselves is more important than the economic conditions of the people in determining their political
orientations. In ancient Greece the culture of the self-sufficient small farmer and the virtues they
17
developed made way for democracy. The patriarchal values of culture and the view of slaves as objects
like washing machines, ovens, or calculators is not acceptable today; Nevertheless the idea that citizens
dependent on the relations of the marketplace could not make autonomous decisions and thus are
unable to contribute to democracy is very important.
In the other democracies that have been experienced since ancient times to today, the importance
citizens place on their independence played a significant role. During the great French Revolution those
who were the most radical agents had not become industrial workers but were instead aristans. They
had newly broken out of their village life and had not lost confidence due to the sense of anonymity
that is found in cities. They created the same sense of community in the neighborhoods as it was found
previously in their villages. Their outlook carried self-confidence from both their communal solidarity
and their artisanship in contrast to ordinary assembly line workers. The workers who led the revolution
in St. Petersberg held similar characteristics. Although they worked in large factories they had not yet
transformed into assembly line workers, they would continue to practice their craft at the bench.
Germany and the United Kingdom experienced rapid industrialization and the rest of the Western world
followed in the second half of the 20th century as the factory workers became a cog in the wheel. Their
work environment didn't permit them to view themselves with the same confidence as the artisan
workers. In these circumstances, rather than finding solutions to the inequality and disempowerment
they were content in improving their work and economic conditions.
So why did the revolutionaries that had self-confidence fail to achieve the Third Revolution?
Although it isn't possible to fully answer this, we must recognize that well developed organizations
which could accomplish the Third Revolution hadn't emerged at that time. Perhaps those who came
18
closest to acheving the Third Revolution were the syndicalist CNT-FAI organization who suppressed
the facsist assault in Barcelona in 1936. However, their anarchist views which desired the dissolution of
power caused a confusion between the distinction of a state and government, as they feared that they
would lose their identity and become an overruling party or state; Despite the fact that the power was in
their hands, this prevented them from institutionalizing it and led them to return it to the government.
On the other hand, the central government took up the first opportunity to rule out the possibility of the
Third Revolution by crushing them. (9)
As we can see in this last example, the people who will succeed in actualizing the Third Revolution and
their organizations, must first and foremost clarify concepts such as government and power. The
success of democracy in ancient Athens was largely a result of the people's opposition to bureaucratic
governments and statehood. Instead they adopted administrative duties by a system of rotation. In this
way, the emergence of a government that was composed of professional officers and hegemony of such
a government were prevented. However, due to the events in Russia, the outcome of thinking that a
central power would be more successful in fighting against reactionary forces and solving economic
problems is known.
Considering these examples, we must not forget that when opposing a bureaucratic centralized power, a
society without power and institutions to make political decisions cannot be conceived. As in the
example of Barcelona, a power vacuum is not allowed. If the people who hope to achieve a direct
democracy do not form institutions and take power, a force that aims to form a class or state
domination will fill this vacuum and take power. The opposition of this force against the dominating
class is not an indication that it does not aim for state domination. In other words, if the people are
unable to exercise this power and fail to build long lasting decentralized democratic institutions the
19
people's power will evaporate.
If we are to evaluate the past revolutions in terms of the present, we must understand that these
revolutions acted on a narrow set of problems in comparison to the issues today. The spread of
capitalism to every corner of the world and the commodification of all natural resources as assets to be
bought and sold within the last century, renders the ecological and social crises today, and the need for
a transformation that will overcome these issues, as urgent. If the destruction of nature, fossil fuel
consumption, air, water, and soil pollution all continue at the same rate the fact that the Earth will cease
to be a habitable environment for human life is becoming increasingly apparent. Capitalism which puts
profit and the accumulation of capital ahead of all other concerns, is not only destroying the first
nature, but also corroding human nature by transforming people into robots only concerned with
economic interests.
The large scale multi-dimensional crisis that is being experienced, can be solved through a Third
Revolution that will have an approach that aims for the elimination of the intertwined domination of
class, gender, state, nation, and the idea of domination of nature. The advancement of technology has
made it possible “to replace the one dimensional worker with the multidimensional citizen as the agent
for social administration and change”(10). In contrast to past revolutions, with this new holistic
perspective, women and marginalized minorities will be able to play as significant a role in creating a
new society as males. In this sense, today's revolutionary utopia will need to go beyond the utopias of
the past.
-----------------------------------------------
1. Goldenberg, Suzanne. "CO2 Emissions Are Being 'outsourced' by Rich Countries to Rising Economies." The Guardian. January 20, 2014. Accessed September 2, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/19/co2-emissions-outsourced-rich-nations-rising-
20
economies.2. Bookchin, Murray. From Urbanization to Cities. London: Cassell, 1992. 48 3. ibid, pg 834. ibid, pg 645. For more information: H.D.F. Kitto, The Greeks, London: Penguin Books, 19516. Bookchin, pg 677. Murray Bookchin, The Third Revolution, London: Cassell, 1996, Volume 1, 2748. ibid, pg 2829. Bookchin, Murray. "The Third Revolution-and Defeat." In The Third Revolution. Vol. 4. London: Cassell, 200510. ibid, pg 267
21
top related