Do we need a revolution? This question came up in a podcast I recently recorded with Prof Radhika Desai, which will be published shortly on her channel and shared here.
My answer was yes, but I think that answer needs some explanation because the word “revolution” frightens people. It conjures up images of barricades, violence, the overthrow of governments and the destruction of existing institutions. That is one meaning of revolution, but it is not the only one, and it is not the meaning I have in mind.
The word revolution originally described turning or circular movement. That idea survives in the way we talk about something revolving.
Imagine turning something around. Turn it a little, and you see it from a slightly different angle. Turn it through 90 degrees, and the view changes considerably. Turn it through 180 degrees, and you see the opposite side. Turn it through 360 degrees, and you end up exactly where you started. The important point is that revolution can simply mean changing the position from which we look at something.
That is why I think we need a revolution. The worldview that dominates our politics and economics is not working. We know that because the evidence is all around us. We have failing public services, profound inequality, insecure employment, inadequate housing and millions of people struggling to make ends meet. At the same time, we face an environmental crisis that threatens the wellbeing of generations to come. Despite all this, governments repeatedly tell us they can do little or nothing to address these issues because, supposedly, there is no money available.
Changing the view
For decades, we have been told that markets know best, that governments should behave like households, that economic growth is the measure of success and that wealth is evidence of merit.
We have also been told that inequality is an unfortunate but necessary consequence of economic efficiency, while humanity can apparently continue consuming the resources of a finite planet without eventually confronting the consequences.
These ideas have become so familiar that they are rarely questioned. They provide the viewpoint from which much of our political debate takes place. Politicians argue about what should be done, but very often they do so without questioning the assumptions that determine what they think is possible. As a result, apparently different political programmes from supposedly differing political parties can end up offering surprisingly similar answers.
Suppose, instead, that we turned some of those assumptions through 90, or even 180 degrees.
Instead of asking how much economic growth we can generate, suppose we asked what the economy is for.
Instead of assuming that the economy exists to serve markets, suppose we recognised that markets should exist to serve people.
And instead of treating government as a burden on the private sector, suppose we understood that government exists to provide the collective goods and services that markets cannot, or will not, supply adequately.
We could turn our understanding of money around as well. Instead of pretending that money is the ultimate constraint on what a government with its own currency can do, we could recognise that the real constraints are the people, skills, energy and natural resources available to us.
Instead of imagining that taxation provides the money that such a government spends, we could recognise that government spending necessarily puts its currency into circulation before taxation can take it back.
And instead of describing the national debt only as a burden, we could recognise that it only represents financial assets and savings held by people and institutions outside government.
We could apply the same shift in perspective to inequality.
Instead of asking how we can make the wealthy richer in the hope that some benefit might eventually reach everyone else, we could ask how everyone might have the resources they need to survive and thrive.
Instead of treating poverty as an individual failing, we could ask why an economy capable of producing enormous wealth distributes access to that wealth so badly.
The world looks very different when viewed from these angles. Things that we have been told are impossible suddenly become possible, while things that we have been told are inevitable become choices. That is precisely why changing perspective can be revolutionary.
Change is inevitable
There is another reason why I think the word revolution is appropriate. Change is inevitable. No society stands still, and neither does any economy. Technology changes, populations change, political expectations change, and, whether we like it or not, the climate is changing. Our understanding of the world changes as well.
The choice we face is not, therefore, between change and no change. It is between managing change deliberately and having change imposed upon us.
Trying to preserve the status quo is not necessarily the cautious option when that status quo is itself creating instability. An economic system that generates extreme inequality, environmental damage, political alienation and failing public services cannot be made sustainable simply by insisting that there is no alternative to it.
The revolution I want is not, then, about tearing everything down. It is about turning around and looking again. It is about questioning assumptions that have become so familiar that we no longer notice that they are assumptions. It is about asking what the economy is actually for, and recognising that economics should serve people rather than requiring people to serve an economic theory.
Most of all, it is about accepting that our survival and our ability to thrive depend upon respecting the ecological limits of the planet on which every economy ultimately depends. Once that is understood, many of the priorities that currently dominate economic policy have to change.
A revolution
So, do we need a revolution? I think we do.
But the first revolution we need is in the way we think. Change the angle from which we look at the world, and different possibilities become visible. Once those possibilities can be seen, the claim that there is no alternative begins to fall apart.
That change of perspective might be the most important revolution of all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I & many of the visitors to this blog would agreed. It then follows: how to communicate this to others. I’m not a great fan of revolutions, they have an unfortunate history. Thus, if one is able to change the way people think – then how to changes things in a way that does not lead to tumbrils.
BTW: the slaughter in the French revolution and the Russian one were responses by the revolutionary gov of the time to outside powers attempting to reverse things.
Mike Parr writes: “BTW: the slaughter in the French revolution and the Russian one were responses by the revolutionary gov of the time to outside powers attempting to reverse things.”
which strangely, makes me think of Iran, and the role of outside powers, in the horrific street violence there.
And the Cuban one too.
Any revolution, including what Richard proposes here, will face severe blow-back from vested interests determined to hang onto their right to extract profit from those less fortunate. We need to plan not just the revolution itself, but also the counter-counter-revolution.
We have been in the midst of a revolution for some time already I would argue – a financial revolution led by extreme money and wealth. Just look at what we have lost and who has gained, and tell me otherwise.
What I think we need now is a counter-revolution.
Fair enough
Wow Richard, I’m very impressed… I’ve a very great deal of respect for Radhika Desai (as well as you and your contributors, obvs.) and I am looking forwards very much to hearing what transpires…. what about Richard Wolff/Michael Hudson?
Let’s see…
But don’t we have to address the monopolised media , where a handful of mega wealthy anonymous moguls own all legacy media and all social media . And BBC is in thrall to them<p>
In this ‘manufacturing consent’ landscape – censorship is pretty well total. <p>
Richard calls for looking at the system in a different way – but that’s precisely what is not allowed.
But we do not have to agree to comply
That is my point.
Revolution never happens with permission.
‘All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. The violence of revolutions is the violence of men who charge into a vacuum.’ JK Galbraith
One difficulty in organising or fomenting a revolution is the all seeing eyes and ears of the establishment in our technology age. From the ubiquitous CCTV systems seemingly on every street to the ability to eavesdrop every word spoken or written via smart devices, alexa, smartphones, etc., it must be near impossible to keep anything confidential. And soon enough, as with Palestine action, the police will always be ever eager to enforce draconian legislation designed to crush popular dissent.
We need to keep nothing confidential.
I said there are no barricades. I would never advocate violence. I am seeking new perspectives. That has to be done openly, one coffee at a time if need be.
To get this revolution underway we need an effective spin-doctor.
Revolution? Yes please.
I agree with pretty much all that you said Richard. But, like some of your previous contributors, I am extremely worried that the grip of the status quo is now so strong there is very little oxygen available to the ‘persuaders’ for what will probably be a long drawn out educational campaign. The words of JFK – ‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable’ – may well come back to haunt us, I fear.
I had a thank you message this morning from a long time friend in Cuba, thanking me for sending her and her family a few quid to tide them over these torrid times. She is a former lecturer at Havana University, and they are literally being starved to death by Narco Rubio and his buddy with bone spurs. Why? Because their governments are of different political persuasions. Trying to reason with people like this will be bloody hard work.
If I can get out of my wheelchair, I may well spend some time dusting off my pitchfork this afternoon.
🙂 And thank you
Thank you , Richard, for expressing this so clearly.
I hope that an effective start could be made with water in the UK. The droughts are obvious. Privatisation of monopoly suppliers was, and is, a nonsense. Private businesses, it seems, regard reservoirs as an unnecessary expense rather than ‘an absolute must’. It is also obvious that a policy of ‘Low charges for basic needs, with ever high prices for extravagance’ is compelling for water – as well as for gas and electricity.
One doesn’t need brilliant foresight to realise that ever-more investment in cars can only end in disaster.
There are countries that have begun the revolution. It would be encouraging if the UK could follow leads – and add a few precedents with other matters .
Agreed
Agreed Richard & thank you. For some REVOLT in this country, at least three things seem essential now.
1._ People to grasp how revolting our leadership & governance really is. Not sure how, save your posts, but it needs those producing our “news” to act like professional journalists at all levels within the Media. Wonderful Michael Parenti (1933-2026) identified this problem with his 1986 book Inventing Reality (Pre-dates & arguably better than Chomsky’s MC).
https://transition-news.org/IMG/pdf/inventing_reality_the_politics_of_the_mass_media_by_michael_parenti_z-lib.org_.pdf
Media’ has gutted current affairs, political documentaries & satirical/social comment output. People get peddled relatively biased establishment narratives, especially in ‘Foreign Affairs’. BBC is now atrocious, exemplified by its Palestine reporting subduing outrage against Zionism.
As for Ukraine. I suggest – for the decades’ long build up to Russia’s offensive – Profs’ Jeffrey Sachs or John Mearsheimer be consulted, as to how we end up throwing £ billions to NATO’s now proxy war with Russia; kicked off by a CIA coup and the betraying Russia over the MINSK accords. Sorry, if any dissonance; further info’ here:
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy
Closer to home, example: lack of Media criticism about Burnham’s ‘Climate’ Cobra mtng; resulting “Disposable barbecues’ solution” almost defies contempt.
2._ To REVOLT, people must come together, as communities, interact, share concerns/knowledge (So, greater resilience). With local elections’ turnout often < 40%; we have become apathetic/complacent. My two uncles in WWII didn’t die for this. Community interaction awakens citizenship. Local government has used excuse of ‘austerity’ to abandon instituted meetings. Perhaps, independence ambitions of Scotland, N.I. and Wales might trigger more citizenship & communities’ engagement.
3._ We MUST focus on ‘Climate’ resilience. 1.5C is lost (Please, Talk to Kevin A)
I have reservations about some comments here as I cannot be sure of their reliability, but I share it with that caveat.
Thanks for the link to the Parenti paper. Useful.
I have written a paper called “Power, Legitimacy & Putin” which deals with events 1990s to now. Statements such as “kicked off by a CIA coup and the betraying Russia over the MINSK accords” are both simplistic and factually wrong. Which is a pity because apart from Ukraine, there was much to agree with.
Yes we desperately need a revolution pretty much as you describe. Otherwise we might very well end up with the type of revolution that normally comes to mind
On my days off, I am switching between two books, ‘Treasure Islands’ and ‘Good Food for Everyone Forever’, whose author chooses ‘renaissance’ over reform and revolution, talking about ‘deciding to do things differently’. Do we need a renaissance in economics, in public understanding of how the world works versus how it could work? You are right, we need to see things from new angles; but a lot of people have their eyes shut, including me on bad days, although I know where to look when I open them again. Visionaries show us new things, but eyes and minds need to be open and undistracted, in this noisy world. I think the word revolution is too loaded, off-putting for many, despite what it means.
I was being provocative, deliberately.
What word would you choose?
I know, it suits your article. Going forward, I need to consider.
Anyone else?
Anne S,
How about ‘miracle’? Because I fear that’s what it will require to achieve a peaceful change of the magnitude required within my remaining lifetime.
As ever with such a gloomy comment, being proved utterly wrong would give me great joy.
The revolution has been happening since the Tofflers wrote Future shock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock). Individuals and sub-groups respond differently to future shock so there can be no ‘one size fits all’ politics. Traditional government is consequently obsolete. We need to look at politics afresh. One problem is that the elite and traditional political structures are in denial about the whole thing.
Thank you once again Richard for a truly fantastic article. I agree totally. I have just read Noam Chomsky’s book – Who Rules The World. This book and others like it should be part of the educational curriculum for the whole world. It may help your vision of a Revolution. As a 76 recycled teenager having worked abroad for 30 odd years I now understand why some of the countries my husband and I lived in took decisions that the majority of the public were left scratching our heads.
Reluctantly I post again, accused of deception by Mike Parr, or at least “factually wrong”, which I strongly refute. On my earlier post, 300 words was a serious constraint.
Not in the game of bestowing a halo on Putin but real need to shed this Russophobia guff peddled by Britain since Crimea, and try to see where Russia is coming from.
With German unification, 1990/91, US and allies gave “a cascade of assurances” about not moving NATO eastwards (See: US National Security archive).
Once USSR collapsed, US neocons drove their “benevolent global hegemony”. Under Obama, this became, “Full-spectrum Dominance”.
In 1997, a troop of eminent US statesmen: George Kennan; Robert McNamara; Paul Nitze; Robert Gates, and Jack Matlock, all publicly and vociferously argued against NATO eastward expansion.
Instead, neocons demanded their uni-polar US hegemon world: Russia must be put in its place, destabilised even. Putin comes to power in 2000 with Russia in a dire, vulnerable state, and from outset advocates for a pan-European, inclusive and equitable, security approach.
NATO ran military exercises with Ukraine from 2008; the year of Bill Burns ‘Nyet means Nyet’ cable back to Washington reporting Russia’s red line: Ukraine should not be a nuclear armed NATO member.
“CIA coup”: Amongst several academics, including Profs Sachs, Mearsheimer and Sakwa, the 2014 change in government was categorised as a US-orchestrated coup (displacing a President favouring Ukraine’s neutrality), helped by Ukrainian nationalist (Neo-Nazi) extremists.
“Minsk II accords”: Were not keenly pursued under US oversight so substantially failed. Merkel in 2022 conceded Minsk II was an attempt to “give Ukraine time” to build up its military strength; this Russia viewed as a diplomatic betrayal.
Suggesting one read of many: Scott Horton’s Provoked.
(Had tried to post last night)