A viable means to an end?

[Steve_j]

Hey guys, new here and have a lot to read. Great to see so much information and people willing to help. First question is what are peoples views on a viable means to an end? Whilst im sure most of us agree (to a certin extent) on the ultimate destination, do you believe we currently have a viable way of achieving it? Or do people just follow what they feel is most viable? Are people generally open to more routes than one? Obiously the time, place and social conciousnes of the time will dictate how it is achieved but personally i do struggle to find a viable means.

Some of the things is struggle with are, starting with vangaurd parties, they havent proved sucessfull so far, in some cases extreemly detrimental and in my limited knowlege of marxist teachings they are actually a contradiction of marxism and too open to corruption.

A non hierarchical revoultion would be nice but wouldnt the lack of structure in organization hinder the ablity to successfully function against a very powerful and organised system?

And as i see it, revoultions achieved with violence will need to be maintained and defended with violence which is not an ideal postion to be in.

And ofcourse the use of the current democratic system would be ideal to create a slow and sutainable evolution, but at the end of the day the system is corrupt, not really democratic and invested interests would crush it.

I know its all pretty negative but am hoping people can change my views or perhaps of insight to some other alternatives. No one wants to have hope in somthing unobtainable :)

[ZeroNowhere]

Non-hierarchal doesn't mean 'not organised.' For example, see the SPGB (and other WSM Parties). Anyways, since you're asking for our viewpoints, here's De Leonism: -click- (http://www.revleft.com/vb/de-leonismi-t100202/index.html?p=1341927#post1341927)
Of course, under, say, a fascist regime, different tactics would be applicable.

[Steve_j]

Sorry I was refering to organised structure in a hierarchal sense. Checking the link now.. Cheers

[Oneironaut]

Hey guys, new here and have a lot to read. Great to see so much information and people willing to help. First question is what are peoples views on a viable means to an end? Whilst im sure most of us agree (to a certin extent) on the ultimate destination, do you believe we currently have a viable way of achieving it? Or do people just follow what they feel is most viable? Are people generally open to more routes than one? Obiously the time, place and social conciousnes of the time will dictate how it is achieved but personally i do struggle to find a viable means.

You are exactly right. The time, place, social conscious, and historical conditions will all dictate the path of a revolution. I think there are multiple ways of leading a successful revolution. A Marxist doesn't take anything as dogma. Marx offers us a critical approach that we can use to constantly update our approaches based on conditions.


Some of the things is struggle with are, starting with vangaurd parties, they havent proved sucessfull so far, in some cases extreemly detrimental and in my limited knowlege of marxist teachings they are actually a contradiction of marxism and too open to corruption.

I agree.


A non hierarchical revoultion would be nice but wouldnt the lack of structure in organization hinder the ablity to successfully function against a very powerful and organised system?

This is the big question. My opinion is that political parties and trade unions are no longer an exit for the Left for the exact reason that they are operating in a system where to be successful, centralization is necessary. But they are other organizational methods. Check out the ICC: http://internationalism.org/500/


And as i see it, revoultions achieved with violence will need to be maintained and defended with violence which is not an ideal postion to be in.

Well the ideal position is to just have the capitalists throw in the towel. It just won't work that way. History proves us otherwise.



And ofcourse the use of the current democratic system would be ideal to create a slow and sutainable evolution, but at the end of the day the system is corrupt, not really democratic and invested interests would crush it.

Reformism attempts to solve problems created by contradictions in society. As long as these contradictions exist (they can only be done away with in revolution), the attempts of Reformism will always be futile.



I know its all pretty negative but am hoping people can change my views or perhaps of insight to some other alternatives. No one wants to have hope in somthing unobtainable :)

Your questions are all very good. Just read as much as you can!

[Steve_j]

Thanks. Appreciate the response, great link! Will have to have a proper dig later as i need to head out soon.


Reformism attempts to solve problems created by contradictions in society. As long as these contradictions exist (they can only be done away with in revolution), the attempts of Reformism will always be futile.

but wont that (revolution) simply mean the the repression of capitalist ideology? There for not truely removing it but ultimately leading to a represive society as oposed to a libertarian one? Ie China, Soviet Union or Cambodia in extreems.

[Steve_j]

I guess it's a justifiable repression in certin instances..... Just it seems to go too far too often imo.