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