I think you focus too much on the notion of a revolution. There will be no instant revolution whereby the working classes come together and violently overthrow our rulers. It isn't that simple.
The problem lies with invisible forces, such as the free market. We don't live in an age where we can justifiably rise up and savagely overthrow something which is the very embodiment of our oppression. They could in imperial Russia, we can't in the United Kingdom.
We have had revolutions in the past, in the 17th century, which didn't work to plan. Alas, the monarchy returned. Apart from that incident the British revolution has been a gradual yet persistent one and that is in all likelihood how it will continue to progress.
In its true form i don't think the labour party is any kind of bougeoise party. In its true form it is a workers party. The true cause of this party has been subverted and its power weakened in recent years as the leadership has found itself in the control of more right-wing elements. The way forward is to strengthen labour party democracy and to make it accountable to those at the very grassroots.
Comment from: Member
Capitalism cannot be abolished by slow gradualism, the capitalists will simply make a stand and put a stop to it if they feel their privileges are being eroded. The last half century is evidence of that.
We should also note that we haven't been making any progress over the last 30 years, the working class has suffered setback after setback. Ours is one of the first generations in modern history that are worse off than the previous generation.
The Labour Party is bourgeois because it has never committed itself to abolishing the bourgeoisie, and historically it has always been controlled by people further right than the workers themselves. It has only gotten more bourgeois since the 1920s.
A workers' party wouldn't be getting Royal Mail ready for privatisation, it would be expanding the public sector, pulling more and more areas of the economy into public ownership and public accountability and control. This is the party that we need the Labour Party to be, we also are well aware of what the capitalists would be doing to the economy with a workers' party in power, they would be sabotaging it - ready for the return of the Tories. At that point we need a party to end private ownership of the means of production and utterly destroy the power base of capital - I don't think Labour could ever go that far, which is why we need a revolutionary party.
Otherwise no long-term progress is made. It's just yo-yoing back and forth between concessions from capital and all out class war from capital when they want to save a few pennies. The cycle needs to be broken, and it can only be done by the workers' taking over control of society.
On revolution, or rather socialist revolution in the Marxist sense, what this amounts to is the transference of power from one class to another. How this will play out is very much up in the air, though I suspect and hope any such event in Britain would bear few similarities with the brutality to the Russian experience of 90 years ago.
On Labour, I'd agree it is still a bourgeois workers party, but workers are very thin on the ground when it comes to individual membership. The majority of trade unionists are either political independents, with a minority in the various revolutionary groups. The problem is the Labour party cannot be reclaimed in any meaningful sense. The acquiescence of the TU bureaucracy to the gutting of conference this year has made it constitutionally impossible to hold the Nu Lab leadership accountable. In my opinion, comrades in Labour should either throw their efforts into building the LRC, or perhaps consider life outside in one of the revolutionary groups (I would say join the SP, but then I'm biased ;))
I forgot to add that I've added you to my blogroll btw.