6. TIMING IN REVOLUTIONARY POLITICS The activity of a revolutionary organisation forms part of a chain of events taking place over time. The revolutionary minority never confronts the whole chain, because it is composed of economic factors, the actions of other political organisations, the consciousness and combativity of the working class, and many other elements that are either wholly or partially independent of the influence of the organised minority. A network of revolutionaries can have a crucial effect on the course of events, but only if it accurately gauges the way in which these other factors are shaping them, and if it tailors its actions to promote some outcomes and suppress others. Moreover, and crucially, since the weight of these factors and overall direction of events are constantly changing, what a revolutionary organisation may be able to achieve at one time may not be achievable even a short time later. In short, the question of timing is crucial. This is never more true than in the timing of revolution itself. Here is one less well known example from the English Revolution. In 1647, after the First Civil War, King Charles was being feted by the moderates in the House of Commons. If they had been successful, the radicals in the New Model Army, the decisive revolutionary force at this moment, would have been marginalised, and the revolution might never have achieved its full stature. But decisive action by Cromwell - who vacillated before and after attempting to come to a treaty with the King - and the Army radicals, led to the seizure of Charles by a troop of horses commanded by Cornet Joyce (a very junior officer). Asked by the King for his commission for arrest, Joyce simply pointed to the troopers behind him. Had the King not been taken prisoner by the Army, he might have been restored to the throne. A more famous example comes from the Russian Revolution. The period immediately before the October insurrection was one of confusion among the leaders of the Bolshevik Party. Lenin wrote letter after letter urging preparations for a new insurrection. Lenins tone is frantic in this correspondence because he believed that delay would be disastrous. Delay is criminal. To wait . . . would be . . . a betrayal of the revolution. And again: to miss such a moment . . . would be utter idiocy, or sheer treachery . . . for it to mean losing weeks at a time when weeks and even days decide everything. It would mean faint-heartedly renouncing power, for on 1 - 2 November it would have been impossible to take power. Finally, after he had threatened resignation from the Central Committee, the Partys leading body, Lenins view prevailed and the insurrection took place on 25 October 1917. It is not always the case that urgency means a matter of days. In a revolution, as Lenin noted elsewhere, developments that normally take years can be contracted into days, even hours. But there is, nevertheless, always a window of opportunity outside which certain actions will no longer be possible or will not have the same force. In recent history, for instance, had revolutionaries not decided to launch the Stop the War Coalition within days of the attack on the Twin Towers, it is unlikely that it would have had the same galvanising effect that it did. Of course, it is also possible to move too quickly. Had the Bolshevik attempted a revolution in the summer of 1917, when reaction was in the air, it would certainly have rebounded on them, strengthening the counter-revolution, perhaps decisively. At this time, the Bolsheviks worked to restrain those who wanted to push forward and launch an insurrection. But whether one is urging restraint or advance, issuing a clear call at teh appropriate time is essential. Many years ago, the labour historian Ralph Samuel wrote that one of the things he disliked about the Communist Party was that there was always a tone of emergency in the organisation. Something or other always had to be done now, could not wait, and so on. This criticism is misplaced. If a revolutionary organisation is to play its role in the chain of events, whatever that role might be at any given time, it must act with dispatch. There is always something to be done to maximum effect, it needs to be done in a timely manner. But timely is a variable quantity. What is necessary to prepare for imminent revolution may have to be accomplished with greater speed than the preparation for a demonstration in normal times that is six months hence. But since all organisations, even revolutionary organisations, produce their inertia, adhering to past patterns of work even when the challenges arise, there will always be a battle to turn the organisation to a correct orientation in good time. Other political forces, both enemies and rivals, will not wait. So timing will always be of the essence for revolutionaries. Duncan Hallas, a leading revolutionary socialist and author of a very useful study of Trotsky, used to quote Shakespeare to make the point: There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life, Is bound in shallows and miseries, On such a full sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.
Posted on: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:05:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015