Spontaneity or conspiracy?

Fundamental questions are often asked as to the methodology for effecting change in the society. Human beings are constantly busy trying to make progress in the society, discarding whatever holds them back, and adopting better and better systems to enrich their existence.

Revolutions are a natural phenomenon, being the process by which the society discards a system that holds them back in order to institute one which promotes their highest level of existence. But even then, revolutions don't just happen by themselves; they are made. A most vital question, therefore, which frequently befalls the partakers of the revolution; the revolutionary vanguard, is if and how it should be planned, if and how it should be prepared in advance with or without the participation of the masses and if and how it should be led by a small group of people, the vanguard. In short, spontaneity or conspiracy?

It goes without saying that many revolutionary situations throughout history have been met by the masses in these two alternative ways, and the success of the revolution itself has been dependent upon the correctness of the application of either of them at that particular time.

As regards this question, Rosa Luxemburg, the Polish born German Marxist, wrote;

The modern proletariat does not carry out its struggle according to a plan set out in some book or theory; the modern workers struggle is a part of history, a part of social progress, and in the middle of history, in the middle of progress, we learn how we must fight...That's exactly what is laudable about it, that's exactly why this colossal piece of culture, within the modern workers' movement, is epoch defining; that the great masses of the working people first forge from their own consciousness, from their own belief, even from their own understanding, the weapons of their own liberation.

In her analysis, the masses, the workers as well as the peasants, need not have a clearly thought out plan of action prior to a revolutionary situation. Instead, a revolutionary situation, when it arrives, inspires the masses to fight and in the process a plan of action is born, and the revolution carried to its conclusion.

There have been several in history in which the situation took this course of events. A revolutionary situation occurs, drawing in the bulk of the masses; the workers, peasants, and even the students, into the revolutionary fold. A popular insurrection then occurs, for clearly, no one is able to stand against the will of the people. Recent events a few years ago culminating in the Arab spring are an example of a popular insurrection. The wave of socialist uprisings in Europe on the late 1840s as well as the formation of the Paris commune are also bare instances.

However, making an insurrection is one thing; effecting a revolution is another. An insurrection simply involves toppling a government in place, whereas a revolution involves effecting an entire societal order; replacing a system with another. A revolutionary situation, therefore, may logically lead to an insurrection, but the possibility of the entire revolution occurring may depend on various factors that go beyond simply being able to replace an existing government.

Wrote Leon Trotsky, the Russian revolutionary and one of the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917;

An element of conspiracy almost always enters to some degree into any insurrection. Being historically conditioned by a certain stage in the growth of a revolution, a mass insurrection is never purely spontaneous. Even when it flashes out unexpectedly to a majority of its own participants, it has been fertilized by those ideas in which the insurrectionaries see a way out of the difficulties of existence. But a mass insurrection can be prepared and foreseen. It can be organized in advance. In this case the conspiracy is subordinate to the insurrection, serves it, smoothens its path, hastens its victory. The higher the political level of a revolutionary movement and the more serious its leadership, the greater will be the place occupied by conspiracy in a popular insurrection.
LEON TROTSKY, Art of insurrection, Triumph of the Soviets - History of the Russian revolution (1925)

Clearly outlining the role of conspiracy in the planning and execution of an insurrection, in the presence of a revolutionary situation, Trotsky was relating the role of the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, in leading the workers and the peasants of Russia towards creating a socialist system. The presence of a disciplined and well prepared party, a serious leadership of the vanguard and a correct reading of the mood of the masses all enabled the people of Russia, led by the Bolsheviks, to achieve the demands of their society at that time. In short, it took a conspiracy, a well thought out plan of action by the leading revolutionaries of Russia, to take advantage of the revolutionary situation, to carry through the needs of the development of the Russian people and to create a system of the highest degree of democracy in Russia.

So how, therefore, can the modern revolutionary expect the course of the revolution to take, given the condition of the meeting of the objective and the subjective factors of the revolution? In the event of a revolutionary situation, should the masses, filled with revolutionary fire and the urge to create a better system, engage in revolutionary work without a plan set out by the vanguard, instead waiting to formulate a plan in the process of their struggle? Or should the masses act in accordance with the direction provided by their leadership, their vanguard, their party; the clique of revolutionaries who, in their reading of the situation, perceive an insurrection as the only way out in the bid to ensure the collective survival of the society as a whole?

In the instances where revolutions have occurred spontaneously, there is often a vacuum of leadership that occurs after the insurrection has been successful. Without a revolutionary vanguard to lead the proletariat and the peasants, an insurrection may be successful, but grave dangers may plague the revolution itself. Often, sections of the old ruling class, disguised as progressive and in solidarity with the masses, find their way back into leadership and betray the revolution.

Thus, in order to ensure that the real needs of the development of the society are met; in order to ensure that the society moves to the next level of development; in order to ensure that a revolution is carried to its conclusion, cautious planning is absolutely necessary, not only because it will provide the masses with the necessary leadership throughout the revolution, but also because it will shield the society from reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries from the old ruling class when they arise.

Hence, it is the responsibility of the enlightened members of the society; the leadership of the masses, the vanguard, the party, to provide an accurate reading of the circumstances in the society at any particular period, to come up with an elaborate plan with which to carry through the revolution and to lead the masses on the path to their final victory.

Further, it should be understood that a revolutionary situation should be followed by a change in the leadership of the state, and, for this to occur, careful planning by the vanguard has to take place.

More precisely, a revolution requires an insurrection, and an insurrection requires a conspiracy.