In the right/wrong place?

[Bitter Ashes]

Hiya
My name's Rachel. I'm not sure if I belong here or not really, but I thought it was worth checking. Please dont flame me, I'm really not looking for trouble and if I'm incompatibly controversial to the group I'll just make my way to the door myself without all the nastiness. :unsure: I'm hoping that the best case scenario is that I get a name for the thoughts I'm having, or at the worst case, I will have learned a little.
Anyway, yeah, there is stuff in the UK that's starting to bug me. I'm working as a cleaner and earning a whole £60 a week for it. I get some help with my housing too, but that's capped at less than my rent because I'm under 25. I also got a letter the other day from the Jobcentre saying that I wasnt eligable for any further support because I'm under 25. I've been told that the law states I require £45 a week to live off. To put things into perspective, my rent in this shared house, where I've got a single room is £75 a week. Because of my age, I'm told by the council that I'm supposed to go and live with my parents again, who wont even talk to me, let alone offer any support. Finding full time work is a nightmare, despite me bieng educated. I suspect this is due to me bieng partially deaf, lgbt, young, having an "undesirable accent" and of course, the whole global recession thing. After 12 months of applying for 10 jobs a week, I've pretty much given up hope until at least one of those things ceases to be an issue to employers.
While at work 2 weeks ago, I was told that nearly a quarter of the staff of the office I clean have been laid off, despite me observing that the staff have a massive workload and the company in question has even been featured in the financial pages of a national newspaper recently for doing well in the recession. On the same day, I went to go clean up in the managers' offices and found one with his feet on the desk, listening to an ipod, one throwing a rubber ball band at the wall, and the rest chatting away to each other, laughing and joking. As I was clearing away the leftovers of thier Subway banquet (some of that ended up wrapped up and taken back to mine for tea I might add! Something I'd been warned, in the past, is a sackable offence if I was caught), I noticed that each and every desk is complete with either a BMW or Mercedes keyring. 20 feet away in the staff offices, there was choas. Even the poor receptionist had a huge pile of files on her desk, because she'd ended up doing 3 peoples' jobs. Finaly I've heard that my own contract is under threat due to "cost cutting".
So, yeah. Something is broken. I certainly hold no disagreements there. It does bother me that the bankers are taking bonuses and that even those managers I mentioned above too could have saved at least some of those staff from them forgoing thier bonuses this year. It bugs me that less than 3% of all discrimination in the work place cases are ruled in the prosecution's favour. It bugs me that when I was made so ill that I was unable to walk for 6 months, the descion on whether I was fit to work or not was made by a contractor who gained commission for each person she got marked as "able to work", rather than a doctor.
And this is where I think I'm going to become unpopular now... :( What I cant agree on though is this whole idea that stuff like this cant be changed democratically and without revolution. I *DO* worry about things turning out like Stalin's Russia, or like an Orwellian novel. The thought of leaving our fate in the hands of whoever gets what they want through brutality alone, frightens the life out me. What's so wrong with the thought that the changes that are needed couldnt be voted in democratically with a majority support? And if there isnt a majority support just yet, then surely we shouldnt be forcing an unwelcome change upon people by threatening them with violence?
*pokes her head out of the smoke*
I'm prepared to accept that there's always propaganada around and maybe I've been misinformed of the methods involved in the changes involved, or that there's maybe something (it would have be increadibly major :unsure:) that I've totaly missed that would "justify" such actions. As I said though, I was after some education and I'd say that my support for any of this would be very strongly hinged on the answers I got. I do repeat again though, I'm not trying to stir up trouble and as I've pointed out I'm prepared to accept that I'm either wrong, or in the wrong place without getting flamed. :unsure:
-Rachel

[ZeroNowhere]

"Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution."
-Daniel De Leon

A revolution does not have to be violent. It doesn't matter if a transition to socialism is achieved through the ballot (see: World Socialist Movement, though note that their article on SIUs is rather, well, silly), through insurrection, general strike, or the De Leonist method. On the other hand, to quote Marx, "The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself." Due to the absence of direct democracy, the working class cannot just vote in socialism. Total reliance on a few elected 'representatives' could lead to nothing really being achieved. Also, the economy must continue to function immediately after revolution, and thus the workers organizing into a group would help solve the first problem, as well as the continuance of production in a democratic manner, or, as De Leon put it, "Industrial Unionism is the Socialist Republic in the making; and the goal once reached, the Industrial Union is the Socialist Republic in operation. Accordingly, the Industrial Union is at once the battering ram with which to pound down the fortress of Capitalism, and the successor of the capitalist social structure itself." But anyways, I made a post summarizing De Leonism here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1341927&postcount=3), if you're interested. So yeah, socialism is not necessarily violent, though fascist regimes could make it a necessity in areas under their rule.
I suppose that I'll leave justifying insurrectionism to you to the insurrectionists.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

1. Yeah we belive a revolution insted of a reform is needed because


A - People dont see the world proply when in positions of power and become out of touch
B - If we came close to winning an election it would end up , rigged or are candidates would be shot , basiclly the capitlists would cheat
C - Even if we did get in because we would still have a capitalist system the rulers would still be capitalists (head of corporations etc) not communists.

Stalins russia was a fuck up but was a result of lennism. Anarcho-communism is where its at.

Also where abouts are you in the UK if your in london or whatever you look like ud do well joining a group such as LCAP

[Rjevan]

Hi and welcome!
Don't worry, nobody is going to flame you, because you're asking legitimate questions in the learning section. ;)

What bugs you is just what bugs us: exploiting capitalists who don't care for the working class. They get absurd wages for doing nothing (besides of playing golf) while people like you have barely enough to live. They don't care about anything but how to amass more money and we see what we get out from this (recession and financial crisis). If you told them about your troubles they'd likely laugh at you and say "Well, your problem."

As you can see in ZeroNowhere's post, there are many different forms of socialism/communism (and anarchism, too) and not all think that a violent revolution is necessary (I myself think that a revolution is necessary, because you'll have always the capitalists against you which will do their best to make it very hard for a left party to be voted in and most people are fooled by their propaganda).
Besides, as you said, many of the things you hear about Stalin's Russia, USSR and the radical left are capitalist propaganda, which often hasn't got anything to do with reality.

I suggest you look a bit around in the forum and decide, if it comes close to your ideas, but I think you are certainly right here. :)

[Hit The North]

Scaeme

As Marxists we believe that the revolution must be the act of the working class itself. It is only on the basis of the mass participation of the working class, together seizing the means of production for itself, that a truly socialist society can be realised. Socialism will be more deeply and broadly democratic than the current arrangement which is really a disguised dictatorship of the rich and powerful.

[RedAnarchist]

Welcome to RevLeft. You're asking the right questions and so you're more than welcome to be here.:)

[Bitter Ashes]

Hi again everyone. Thanks for the replies :)
I guess there's bits I agree with and bits I dont agree with. I certainly do think that unions are a great thing and underused in the UK. In only one of my workplaces there's been a union present and that's not a good thing.
I do also agree that there probably is propaganda around and most messages that you try to get out, would be swallowed up in due to the stigma associated with the words communist or socialist. Part of me wonders whether if you did ever win though, whether the same thing would just happen if anybody ever suggested a potentialy capitalist solution to a current issue at the time, while I'd be against any manipulation of the media by any goverment whether capitalist or othewise.
Armed rebellion is something that I can quite honestly say, is something I cannot forsee bieng nessiary or a positive move in the UK. As quite rightly pointed out, if there was armed force bieng used against people, by, using the example given of a fascist goverment, then yes, I can see how fighting back with an equal force would be unavoidable. I just cant see Gordon Brown rounding up communists and putting them against a wall though. I know he couldnt organise a pissup in a brewary, but he's hardly head of the SS.
One stumbling block I'm always going to have though is down to the unrealised potential of the traditional House of Commons we have in the UK. I do firmly believe that with good MP's in there who represent the constiuants they were voted in to represent, then anything's possible. There is no constitution in British politics, especially when it comes to any insistance upon there bieng a 2 party system. If people are truly educated about what thier vote means, then I'm adamant things would find a way to get voiced and voted upon, more often. I do realise that this is an international forum and a lot of this might not apply to other countries, but I am confident that the Roundheads had ensured that the system they brought power to was as flexable as it needed to be. If there was ever a situation where a majority in our country disagreed with the manifesto of a communist party then we have no right to force it upon them, any more than capitalists would have any right to force capitalism upon a country that rejected them.
So, I'm not sure where this leaves me. I'd like to think that despite all this, there's still some compatability, but if there ever was some rebellion like there was in Cuba, I'm unsure if my conscience could deal with me knowing that I was in some part responsable. Would I be?
-Rachel
p.s. FAO "Joe" I'm from Yorkshire :)

[apathy maybe]

The trouble with reform? Where do you start.

Even if there were an elected socialist (and I use the word here in a very narrow sense) government, they could still do fuck all for the majority of people. Have a look at Venezuela for example, where after ten years of "socialism", they still haven't managed to close the poverty gap, nor get rid of most of the government.

Basically, revolution, in the sense of complete upheaval, is the only way forward. It doesn't have to be violent, except that I doubt the folks in power are going to be happy to see their power disappear.

It comes down to people taking control over their own lives. You don't want to go and clean some shitty office for shitheads who do fuck all work, but still get far more cash than you. Who would?

Anyway, take control over your own life, start small, and convince others to join in the revolt. I suggest hanging out with anarchists, folks who do food not bombs, and other such sorts. The paper selling reformists "Marxists" aren't worth it, they may not believe that they want power for themselves, but I wouldn't put it past the leadership of their parties to be power hungry idiots just as the heads of the other parties are.

[Nils T.]

Armed rebellion is something that I can quite honestly say, is something I cannot forsee bieng nessiary or a positive move in the UK. As quite rightly pointed out, if there was armed force bieng used against people, by, using the example given of a fascist goverment, then yes, I can see how fighting back with an equal force would be unavoidable. I just cant see Gordon Brown rounding up communists and putting them against a wall though.And you probably won't, simply because he (or anyone else) doesn't need to. Armed repression is something unnecessary in the UK.

But approaching the problem in this way is, in short, renouncing to your potential political role as an individual currently surviving in this country. The idea at the root of the various communists theories is not about the legitimate way to oppose the rulers of capitalism, but about the unsustainability of life under their rules. I mean that there is no such thing as an absolute and exclusive alternative between destroying them and obeying them. There is no way for us to start a revolution like cuba's in the UK now; gordon brown is not batista and we're not the cuban people.

We could edict for ourselves rules about our conduct to respond to the caricature of the bolshevik with the knife between his teeths. But they would only impose on us this caricature as a mask on our real capacities, and lead us to think that revolution is an ideological process, and it is not. We don't have even the choice between armed rebellion and reform. And the very tendance in the UK and other european countries to think about the question of the power on the society as a succession of collective choices instead of a question about the will of converging or diverging groups of people is itself the reason why one choice (the reformist one) is currently dominant over the other.
I'm relatively bloodthirsty myself. Il s'agit d'être cruel, mort aux flics et aux curés, tout ça. That being said, i know the reasons why I don't want a civil war. But I won't buy the lie that revolution means civil war, nor the illusion that my choice have a meaning no matter what I can do. Communists are not lying down the walls, and you're not living in a police state; but that does not mean that the political system is not totalitarian.

Don't choose between trotsky and gordon brown, just try to know if you want to spend at least some decades in the environment you describe in the first post. Because wether you're comfortable with reformism or comfortable with "socialism without liberty", that's what comfort lead you too. You can also try individual terrorism or lifestylism...


I *DO* worry about things turning out like Stalin's Russia, or like an Orwellian novel.Orwell *DID* fight the spanish war.

[Decolonize The Left]

Scaeme,
First, welcome to the board.
Second, please communicate personal information (such as where you're from) through personal messages if possible - simple security culture.
Third, you're situation/thoughts - a couple things:

On reform and capitalist democracy:
I have drawn from your posts that you have faith in a representative democracy coupled with a capitalist economy.

Very briefly, representative democracy cannot be democratic. Why is this? Because a democracy is "a government for, of, and by, the people." A representative democracy is by definition not "of the people" (as it is "of representatives"), not "by the people" (as it is "by representatives), and arguably rarely "for the people" for the following reason. When a politician gains office, what is his/her primary goal? To remain in office/to be re-elected. Hence we understand immediately that this politician/representative cannot possibly actually do their job as their interests have been undermined from the very basis of their assuming office. They cannot have the people's interest at heart as their primary interest must be to remain in office.

With that said, within a capitalist economy the representative democratic political system cannot stand isolated from economic influence. Given that it the primary goal of all capitalists is to accumulate more capital, and given that the political system controls a large portion of that capital, it is highly likely that all capitalists will be involved in the political system to some degree.

How then, do you expect there to be proper reform (that is reform in favor of the working class) through a system which is dominated by the interests of the capitalist class?

The reason why I ask is that a working class movement seems to be possible only through the collective movement of the working class as a whole. If this is the case, then reform (while possibly beneficial to some in the short term) is ultimately secondary to the development of class consciousness.

It seems to me that you are already quite class conscious, I wished merely to discuss the issue of representation and reform.

I apologize if this was too long or off-topic.

- August

[Bitter Ashes]

How then, do you expect there to be proper reform (that is reform in favor of the working class) through a system which is dominated by the interests of the capitalist class?

The reason why I ask is that a working class movement seems to be possible only through the collective movement of the working class as a whole. If this is the case, then reform (while possibly beneficial to some in the short term) is ultimately secondary to the development of class consciousness.

Well, maybe I'm looking at things with over simplicitity here, but I'll certainly have a go.
1) I think the idea of MP's having to please thier voters in order to get thier wages is a great idea. If I felt my MP was failing to represent my views, then I wouldnt vote for him. If enough people agree then he's in the dole queue with the rest of us. I think that keeping the MP's aware that it is ultimatly the voter that holds the purse strings should be an incentive to keep them in line.
Of course, it doesnt always work out like this. Too many voters are unaware of the power of thier vote. They've been brought up to vote red or blue and will do so without even thinking of it. They forget that they're voting for a person and think they're voting for a party, or even worse, that they're voting for the leader of that party. Simple education about the vote would go a long way in my books

2) Buisnesses dictating party policy? I'm sure it happens! As is stands, parties have to be privatly funded to operate and they get that from donations. Of course, the biggest donations will always be from the richest individuals and they'll only donate if they agree that the party is going to benefit them. So, there's a two stage approach here. It requires a little bit of legislation, but it can be achieved democratically rather easily.
Firstly, parties become entirely publicly funded. The ins and outs of that I'll leave to the beurocrats, but obviously it'd be monitored as it would be public money and that means it has to be shown to be being spent in a way that benefits us.
The second part is to remove the other threat that buisnesses attempt in the Netherlands (I heard about this today from MaoChix. Thanks! ^^). Apparantly if the goverment behaves in a way that the buisnesses dont like, they just uproot and leave, creating joblosses and a drop in productivity. Why not just nationalise the buisness straight away if they try that?
The combination of these two things should remove the power of buisnesses and the rich from dictating policy to the parties.

As I warned from the start, I'm probably just over simplifiying, so if you see holes point them out by all means :P

[Invincible Summer]

Of course, it doesnt always work out like this. Too many voters are unaware of the power of thier vote. They've been brought up to vote red or blue and will do so without even thinking of it. They forget that they're voting for a person and think they're voting for a party, or even worse, that they're voting for the leader of that party. Simple education about the vote would go a long way in my books

My qualms with voting aside, one should vote based on the policies presented, not for the leader nor the party.


2) Buisnesses dictating party policy? I'm sure it happens! As is stands, parties have to be privatly funded to operate and they get that from donations. Of course, the biggest donations will always be from the richest individuals and they'll only donate if they agree that the party is going to benefit them. So, there's a two stage approach here. It requires a little bit of legislation, but it can be achieved democratically rather easily.

If it's so easy, why hasn't it happened? Also, it's not only that the party gets donations if the company feels that they will benefit; the political party will also have to make concessions to the benefactor company as well.

Wealthy companies have a great influence (if not greater) over politics than the voters.


Firstly, parties become entirely publicly funded. The ins and outs of that I'll leave to the beurocrats,
To be truly democratic, the "ins and outs" as you call them should be decided by the people - if they're decided by a bunch of political economists, then no common person will understand the complexities of the system, and thus can be easily manipulated.


but obviously it'd be monitored as it would be public money and that means it has to be shown to be being spent in a way that benefits us.
The government uses public money to do all sorts of questionable shit all the time. Most of the time, people just end up writing letters and writing up petitions. Really effective way of dealing with misspent money.


The second part is to remove the other threat that buisnesses attempt in the Netherlands (I heard about this today from MaoChix. Thanks! ^^). Apparantly if the goverment behaves in a way that the buisnesses dont like, they just uproot and leave, creating joblosses and a drop in productivity. Why not just nationalise the buisness straight away if they try that?
The combination of these two things should remove the power of buisnesses and the rich from dictating policy to the parties.

By monopolizing industry, it just gives the state more centralized power. More centralized state power means more reliance of citizens on the state, which gives the state more power to do whatever it wants.

You said you didn't like an Orwellian situation...

[Decolonize The Left]

Well, maybe I'm looking at things with over simplicitity here, but I'll certainly have a go.
1) I think the idea of MP's having to please thier voters in order to get thier wages is a great idea. If I felt my MP was failing to represent my views, then I wouldnt vote for him. If enough people agree then he's in the dole queue with the rest of us. I think that keeping the MP's aware that it is ultimatly the voter that holds the purse strings should be an incentive to keep them in line.

Well, all representatives have to "please" their voters to a certain degree. The point isn't how that pleasing is done, rather that the fact that it exists alone disproves the notion of democracy.

Furthermore, the common public opinion of a representative is not necessarily truthful, accurate, or reasonable. Public opinion is molded by many factors, and it is not a reliable source of judgment by any means.


Of course, it doesnt always work out like this. Too many voters are unaware of the power of thier vote. They've been brought up to vote red or blue and will do so without even thinking of it. They forget that they're voting for a person and think they're voting for a party, or even worse, that they're voting for the leader of that party. Simple education about the vote would go a long way in my books

But they are not voting for a person. Individual people do not have complete freedom within their seat in government - they are directly responsible to those individuals who funded their campaign, as well as the rest of their party. In fact, individuals have remarkably low freedom when in government and are often forced into positions/decisions which they may not wish to be in. But since they must secure their seat, they cannot object in any meaningful manner.


2) Buisnesses dictating party policy? I'm sure it happens! As is stands, parties have to be privatly funded to operate and they get that from donations. Of course, the biggest donations will always be from the richest individuals and they'll only donate if they agree that the party is going to benefit them. So, there's a two stage approach here. It requires a little bit of legislation, but it can be achieved democratically rather easily.
Firstly, parties become entirely publicly funded. The ins and outs of that I'll leave to the beurocrats, but obviously it'd be monitored as it would be public money and that means it has to be shown to be being spent in a way that benefits us.

What do you mean by "publicly funded?" Who is the public?


The second part is to remove the other threat that buisnesses attempt in the Netherlands (I heard about this today from MaoChix. Thanks! ^^). Apparantly if the goverment behaves in a way that the buisnesses dont like, they just uproot and leave, creating joblosses and a drop in productivity.

But this makes the government even more enslaved to the businesses...


Why not just nationalise the buisness straight away if they try that?

Nationalization of business guarantees little if capitalism is still the accepted and dominant economic theory.

- August

[Bitter Ashes]

Thanks again for the replies. I'm glad you've picked up on those flaws in the system I drew attention to, I would just like to point out again that those flaws I mentioned are fixable.

1) Teaching people that by casting thier vote they have the choice in their hands of whether to vote in the candidate who obeys the party whip without thinking, or whether to vote in the candidate who does the best they can to bring up the questions the parties dont want to hear, to vote in the Commons in the way they believe thier constituants would vote. Every time somebody votes in thier election, they are making this choice. Failing to recognise it is merely casting a vote for reinforcing the status quo. The system is already in place to make limitless change, but it's time for the British public to realise thier responsibility and consequences of thier vote. The potential is limitless and simple education is the key to unlocking it!

2) By funding the parties soley on tax money, banning private donations and proving to buisnesses that thier threat to leave the country will not harm England, removes the power of buisnesses to manipulate parties. Corruption busting is the goal.

There's been responses that putting a fleeing buisness under state control would make things worse. Well, those buisnesses would be under the control of the majority in Commons. If the workers know they'll benefit from a communist goverment and they know that thier vote can make it happen, then that majority should not be a capitalist one.

There was also a concern raised that public money would be misspent if given to parties. Well, thanks to the new freedom of information act, anyone can request the information about how the money is spent.

Surely I'm not the only one who's spotted the potential in the existing parlimentary system? :)

[Invincible Summer]

Thanks again for the replies. I'm glad you've picked up on those flaws in the system I drew attention to, I would just like to point out again that those flaws I mentioned are fixable.

1) Teaching people that by casting thier vote they have the choice in their hands of whether to vote in the candidate who obeys the party whip without thinking, or whether to vote in the candidate who does the best they can to bring up the questions the parties dont want to hear, to vote in the Commons in the way they believe thier constituants would vote. Every time somebody votes in thier election, they are making this choice. Failing to recognise it is merely casting a vote for reinforcing the status quo. The system is already in place to make limitless change, but it's time for the British public to realise thier responsibility and consequences of thier vote. The potential is limitless and simple education is the key to unlocking it!

Again, if it's so "simple," then why isn't it being done? And any vote cast in an election will be a vote for capitalism in some shape or form. Besides, voting to have some random politician debate issues for the people seems unnecessary - why not have the people debate and resolve issues amongst themselves? I don't see why people have to pay the salaries of suit-wearing ass hats in order to solve their own problems.

And why the focus on Britain? Other countries have similar systems too.


2) By funding the parties soley on tax money, banning private donations and proving to buisnesses that thier threat to leave the country will not harm England, removes the power of buisnesses to manipulate parties. Corruption busting is the goal.

There's still under-the-table money that can be given to individual politicians. Under the capitalist system, parties sometimes require business support when carrying out civil projects, yes? So that's an avenue where the businesses can manipulate political parties as well... unless you're suggesting that taxes pay for every single civil project ever.


There's been responses that putting a fleeing buisness under state control would make things worse. Well, those buisnesses would be under the control of the majority in Commons. If the workers know they'll benefit from a communist goverment and they know that thier vote can make it happen, then that majority should not be a capitalist one.

Again, by monopolizing industry, it just gives the state more centralized power. More centralized state power means more reliance of citizens on the state, which gives the state more power to do whatever it wants.

The workers can only benefit from Communism if they are the ones bringing it into action. Communism can not be a top-down system.



There was also a concern raised that public money would be misspent if given to parties. Well, thanks to the new freedom of information act, anyone can request the information about how the money is spent.
Yes, this is done fairly often, but so what? You don't see governments being toppled every other month due to citizens finding out about misspent money. The provincial government here got a multi-million dollar loan from the federal government to build a structure for the Olympics next year.

Many citizens feel this money could be better spent, but the government's the one in charge so they can pretty much tell the citizens to fuck off.

[Bitter Ashes]

I'll be the first to put my hands up and say that bribery is something I overlooked, especially seeing as though it's in the news right now. I guess that's something you cant really stop until communism really is in control of the conuntry. I do recognise that people have other ideas on how to go about that, mine is just to get a majority in parliment to achieve that.
The reason I'm putting the focus on Britain atm is solely because I just dont know enough about the democratic procress in other places in the world enough to feel I'm doing those places justice and heck, maybe some places are totaly incompatible at this moment to achieving the goals through thier parliments/senates/etc, which is why I havent mentioned them, as I honestly dont know enough about every country in the world. It's just me trying to understand one step at a time right now with something I'm familiar with.
MP's may be overpaid, but all but the party leaders and independants are currently living under the strict rules of thier parties. With all the whips around, they are chraged with thought crime if they rebel against thier leader's wishes. If anything, I pity those back benchers, at least we're allowed free speech. Yes, we pay thier wages, but we've also got our hands on the purse strings already though. They fail to please, they get voted out and they're unemployed. I'd call them workers (albiet overpaid ones!) Also, given the name "House of Commons", anyone can become an MP. There's no reason that anyone here who is of British Nationality, over 21 and has £110 in thier pocket to spare for the future of thier country, can not put themselves up for election, do some canvasing and try get themselves elected. If the majority in that constituancy agree with the ideas, then they will vote for you. If they dont vote for you, then educate more, break down more stigma, let workers see that having you in the commons is the start of things working out for them. There's good ideas here and keeping them hidden away in the back alleys of the internet is not going to win support for them quickly.
The issue of the freedom of information act bieng useless is very iffy. The act wasn't around the last election and ever since Nu-Labour's expenses have become public knowledge thier support in the polls has dropped down to 26%. I wont pretend that I think that is the only factor that's caused them to fall out of favour so much, but I dont think we can disregard it wholy. But the fact of the matter is that Labour will not win the next election, unfortuantly due to lack of other options available and publisised, it's looking like the Tories will take Labour's place.
So, my theory on why it's not happened yet? I get a Labour candidate come to my door and tell me what thier plans are in the commons and talk about thier track record and ask me what I want to see. I have a Tory candidate and a Liberal Democrat candidate do that too. If I'm out when they call, I'll see thier adverts on the TV or in the newspaper saying the same thing. Not once, have I heard of anyone having a Communist candidate even attempt to win a vote from them. The fact that I've had to activly search for even the smallest slither of information on the subject says it all really. If you want people to agree with you then I suggest you start talking to them :)

[Bitter Ashes]

Actualy. I'll keep the rest to myself. I think it's become pretty clear that my support of democracy will always be a stumbling block here for me and I doubt I'll be able to keep it to myself. That'll make me feel like a troll, so I think it's probably just best for all involved that I part ways at this point.
As I said at the start, at the very least I will have learned something and I feel I have, so thanks everyone, I do appreciate it and I wish you all luck your own lives, but you'll have to forgive me if I dont wish you luck on any act that pushes democracy any further backwards. Sorry we couldnt see eye to eye and to anyone who feels I might have wasted thier time.
Thanks again
-Rachel

[Boy Named Crow]

Hello Scaeme! Welcome to the board. I'm from the uk too and pretty new to the board.

First I want to say that you shouldn't feel as though you need to subscribe to everything you might learn about or read about in Leftist theories because there are so many and so wide ranging are they that most people on this board don't agree 100% on most things. You'll find your own place in the spectrum of things eventually as you learn a little more and get more confident in those ideas. :)

Secondly regarding your concerns about armed revolution or violent insurrection. To begin with one of the key points of a successful guerilla campaign is that it is BY the people and FOR the people [to quote those damn US presidents]. You can hope for a successful operation if you have the support of the public. Otherwise you're just pissing off the very people you claim to be fighting for.

Regarding what you said about Education being the key. I commented on a thread of similar theme and another has recently been started... but the flaw is that the education system is government controlled. They practically decide the curriculum. So it makes sense to not teach people that they have "options" aside from capitalism and the current government. When at University I lived with a fellow student who studied politics. I can honestly say that a "beginner" like me who studied LITERATURE knew more about communism and marxism etc than they did.

There are thread currently going in another forum about whether governments might be purposely keeping their population un-educated in order to better control them. It's an interesting and worrying thought but if you think about all the stigma that might be attached to ideas such as Communism and Socialism - and then consider where that came from?

Anyways, welcome to Revleft! :)

[Rjevan]

I think it's become pretty clear that my support of democracy will always be a stumbling block here for me and I doubt I'll be able to keep it to myself. That'll make me feel like a troll, so I think it's probably just best for all involved that I part ways at this point.
You have absolutely no reason to feel like a troll. Please understand, we're not against democracy, we're against the current system. No one will consider you as a troll if you ask for more democracy in our society.

Finally I can only say that Boy Named Crow is totally right, saying

that you shouldn't feel as though you need to subscribe to everything you might learn about or read about in Leftist theories because there are so many and so wide ranging are they that most people on this board don't agree 100% on most things. You'll find your own place in the spectrum of things eventually as you learn a little more and get more confident in those ideas.
There are many different types of leftism and in contrast to the fascists we have no problem with individualism. We won't bully you just because you say that you don't agree 100% on the teachings of Marx/Engels/Lenin ... as long as you dont start the "You idiot commies are all wrong, Marx was a stupid fool and I have the only solution to save you misguided people!" thing nobody will be bothered by your beliefs.

[cccplikai]

Marxism-Leninism Stalin Chairman Mao was right ~

The inevitable demise of capitalism!This is a historical law:)Consistent with the historical materialism~Proletarian revolution will be set up through the dictatorship of the proletariat,the failure of the Soviet Union doesn't mean the death of socialism!

You shouldn't hesitate~Belief in communism is right!Marxism-Leninism is the truth~:cool:

[Nils T.]

By funding the parties soley on tax moneyThe french system outlaw the funding of a party by moral persons, and limits the donation from individuals to 7500 euros per year. The tax money fund the parties in two ways, the first in proportion of the number of voices obtained at the last election for the national assembly, and the second in propotion of the number of MPs of the party.
And the spendings during the electoral campaigns are limited and refunded by the state for an important part.

But if one company have more difficulties to obtain advantages for itself from ruling parties, the ruling parties are still as willing as ever to give advantages to the capitalist class as a whole.

[Bitter Ashes]

I dont know if people have noticed that I'm still here. I thought I better just explain myself :)
I had a bit of a chat with somebody in PM's and I guess I had a bit of a change of heart. I think I made the mistake of thinking that this was a single path that everyone thought there should be. So, with that in mind, I was getting myself into the feeling that there's a right way that's expected of me and a wrong way and I was in danger of entering into what is perceived as "the wrong way" and being seen as a troll of something for staying around in a place where I was always going to be on the wrong side of things which I didnt want.
So, I'm going to stick around for a bit longer at least. I'll do some more learning and I'll keep in mind what I've learned so far. In fact, I've got another question already, but I guess it'll be off topic for this thread now, I'll start it elsewhere.
Thanks everyone
-Rachel