Violent revolution

[graffic]

If we look at history and at basic aspects of democratic law we come to the conclusion that violence is wrong and, more importantly, - counter-productive in achieving its aims.

Take a look at the IRA in Ireland, the black panthers towards the end of black civil rights, and the reactionary extremists in Palestine. All groups who use violence and terrorism have created more hostility and more conflict with their aggressors.

That's not to dismiss their causes. All examples above are legitimate causes and deserve support however what is apparent is that violence exacerbated the problem.

My thesis is it's easy to react and fight fire with fire. It's hard to be strong and turn the other cheek. And I understand that sometimes people can be so overcome with emotion that they can't help themselves.

I don't advocate full on pacifism. I believe in many situations, where violence is the only resolution left, such as WW2, violence is necessary to resolve a conflict.

I'm interested to know how revolutionaries who believe in violence to overthrow the ruling class justify their position.

[trivas7]

Thanks for bringing this up. This is the lynchpin upon which revolutionary theory founders: the sanction of violence. I've read analysis that suggests that the social democrat proletariat in Germany during the Russian revolution bet correctly that their lives would improve substantially by using parliamentary means rather than those chosen by the Bolshevik brethren (I'm NOT saying that Bolsheviks instigated violence), somehow corroborated by game-theory. MLK Jr., also coming to socialist conclusions at the end of his life also eschewed the use of violence. Certainly Tolstoy, a rabid anarchist at the end of his life also came to this conclusion.

I haven't any answers, perhaps it's a matter of where one draws the line on where violence is the only option left. I know that many revolutionaries will argue that violence can only be sanctioned as a defensive measure as a means of consolidating the gains of the revolution, but historically there's plenty of evidence, e.g. that Lenin instigated terrorism as an ongoing political tactic. I only feel that workers generally draw the line on social change at the point of sanctioning violence, perhaps mistakenly so.

[synthesis]

"The oppressor defines the nature of the struggle."

I don't think anyone in their right mind advocates violence for its own sake. In general, revolutions are pretty tame when it comes to the spilling of blood - worst case scenario, you chop off a couple noggins to get rid of the old figureheads.

However, the following civil war is generally the point at which both sides commit grave atrocities. If we can figure out a way to avoid it, it would probably be in our interests to do so - we'd avoid a lot of the "bad blood," no pun intended.

[couch13]

Firstly, this


the black panthers towards the end of black civil rights... who use violence and terrorism have created more hostility and more conflict with their aggressors... My thesis is it's easy to react and fight fire with fire. It's hard to be strong and turn the other cheek. And I understand that sometimes people can be so overcome with emotion that they can't help themselves.

and this


I don't advocate full on pacifism. I believe in many situations, where violence is the only resolution left, such as WW2, violence is necessary to resolve a conflict.

directly contridict with one another. To overcome aggressors who are very willing to kill everyone until the rest submit would require violence to resolve the conflict. I will not turn the other cheek as my comrades are being killed. That is counter-productive. As such, the Black Panthers were therefore justified in the violence they used as the police were attacking them. By your own definition their use of violence was just.


I'm interested to know how revolutionaries who believe in violence to overthrow the ruling class justify their position.

Its not really my belief that we should run in guns a blazing. I say that we need general strikes in most of the cities in the United States and have the strike committees take over politically, while the rest of the workers take over industry. Then, we must arm ourselves and be prepared to fight off the counter revolution.

[StalinFanboy]

I don't like the so called "moral high ground" that people associate with nonviolent resistance. People who view violent resistance as wrong or immoral, and as a tactic that shouldn't be used are fucking selfish. They seem to be more concerned with moral purity than actually fighting against injustices. It makes more sense to me that fighting injustice by any means necessary is the right thing to do.


My thesis is it's easy to react and fight fire with fire. It's hard to be strong and turn the other cheek.
This position is insane. It's like pacifists have some sort of martyr complex and they're like "look at me! look at me! I'm getting the shit kicked out of me, but I have the moral high ground." If it's easier to go to war with the bourgeoisie because they are destroying our lives and the planet, then it makes sense to fucking declare war on them.

[Robert]

worst case scenario, you chop off a couple noggins

A couple? That's the worst case scenario?

Somehow I figure the number will be a little higher than that.

[Dóchas]

i think every situation is different for the oppressed so i guess they would have to resist it in their own ways violence included. i think that palimentary means should first be used to try and achieve their goals but if that fails they have been forced to use violence but i would say that they should only use violence once evry other option has been exhuasted

[Ele'ill]

That's not to dismiss their causes. All examples above are legitimate causes and deserve support however what is apparent is that violence exacerbated the problem.



I'm interested to know how revolutionaries who believe in violence to overthrow the ruling class justify their position.

There are many examples of violent resistance groups through out history. Many of them were fighting and dying so that they and their families could function as humans.
Conversley resistance movements have been fought with religion as their vehicle which eventually overcomes their original causes.


Life taking violence (as opposed to property destruction 'violence) is a slippery slope. There are always people in every group that lack common sense.

People also forget that murders can still be committed in a time of war even against enemy combatants.

[Pirate Utopian]

All groups who use violence and terrorism have created more hostility and more conflict with their aggressors.
So? it's not like I want their approval.


My thesis is it's easy to react and fight fire with fire. It's hard to be strong and turn the other cheek.
No, it's fucking difficult to violently overthrow the government.
It's also the effective way.


I'm interested to know how revolutionaries who believe in violence to overthrow the ruling class justify their position.
Shit works. What's to justify?

[Plagueround]

If we look at history and at basic aspects of democratic law we come to the conclusion that violence is wrong and, more importantly, - counter-productive in achieving its aims.

Take a look at the IRA in Ireland, the black panthers towards the end of black civil rights, and the reactionary extremists in Palestine. All groups who use violence and terrorism have created more hostility and more conflict with their aggressors.

That's not to dismiss their causes. All examples above are legitimate causes and deserve support however what is apparent is that violence exacerbated the problem.

My thesis is it's easy to react and fight fire with fire. It's hard to be strong and turn the other cheek. And I understand that sometimes people can be so overcome with emotion that they can't help themselves.

I don't advocate full on pacifism. I believe in many situations, where violence is the only resolution left, such as WW2, violence is necessary to resolve a conflict.

I'm interested to know how revolutionaries who believe in violence to overthrow the ruling class justify their position.


Maybe it's all the world superpowers that were established through violent revolution? You cited all the failures and left out all the huge successes.

[danyboy27]

so much people here advocate violents action but verry fews are actually doing something.


personally, i think violence would work, after all it work all the time, its just that i dont have enough hate filled inside me to actually going out and kill people. maybe i am an idealistic assole but i think its ammoral and wrong.

violence is probably the most efficient tool that ever existed, could be used to establish a dictatorship, a fascist regime, even a communist one could be instaured trought massive violent acts.

then again, i see that from a verry technical point of view, my whole ethical framework is saying that this is verry verry wrong, but if you stay purely technical, yes communism could be achieved trought mass killing and destruction.

[Pirate Utopian]

so much people here advocate violents action but verry fews are actually doing something.
Cause this aint no revolution yet.


i think its ammoral and wrong (...) my whole ethical framework is saying that this is verry verry wrong
Morals are subjective nonsense.
The Man has no moral quarrels about gunning people down, loss of face is all.
So why should we not atleast consider violence?

[NecroCommie]

A couple? That's the worst case scenario?

Somehow I figure the number will be a little higher than that.
Now you missed his point. He was trying to point out that the revolution and the probably following civil war are two completely different things. Revolution itself will be achieved with barely blood at all (as was done in the october revolution), But the previous rulers and their sympathizers have always started a civil war to protect their capitalist rights (this too happened in october revolution). The civil war is bloody. Revolution is not.

Revolution in itself is often nothing more than a declaration of political authority, and the mobilization of authority enforcing units, such as guards and policemen. Usually the previous authority denies these claims of authority, and a conflict is born between these two powers and their supporters.

Ofcourse, with class war the contest will be barely contest at all since the working class outnumbers the capitalist authority with such baffling numbers that little fighting is done. This was ofcourse assuming that all of the working class are class concious.

[Robert]

they should only use violence once evry other option has been exhuasted

They? Will you be sitting on the sidelines watching?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I resent the calling of the Black Panthers a violent organization. The assassination ring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro) was launched by the government against them, not the other way around.

But on the topic of the "moral high ground" people shouldn't be so quick to shrug it off. Depending on the situation, it can be quite a powerful thing.

Case in point:

The Selma incident in the early 1960's, in which black civil rights marchers were beaten, they responded with tactics of non-violence. While people on here might shrug this off as cowardice, it was actually pure genius. People saw police beating peaceful demonstrators, including women and children, all over the country.

Now, imagine, before the News had run that night, some angry marchers came back with rifles and started gunning down police. No doubt I, for one, would have felt they had been justified in doing so. However, the images that would have going out would have been of angry black men killing brave police officers in cold blood. Everything that had been accomplished would have been dashed by this type of action, and it would have been most counterproductive.

We live in the age of Live TV. PR is extremely important, whether that is good or bad notwithstanding.

[Jack]

Those that oppress through violence should be met with violence.

[danyboy27]

Cause this aint no revolution yet.


Morals are subjective nonsense.
The Man has no moral quarrels about gunning people down, loss of face is all.
So why should we not atleast consider violence?

may i remember you that the whole communist struggle thing is based on the most basic moral value: equality

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Those that oppress through violence should be met with violence.

Should? Yes, absolutely they 'should.'

However, the path taken should be the one most likely to end the oppression, which is not always synonymous with violence.

[Bud Struggle]

It's interesting that a "competitive" world view to both Communism and Capitalism--militant Islam takes the view that violence is a acceptable way to achieve their idea of world domination. I wonder if it's working--the Intifata, the attack on the WTC, the suicide bombings.

Islam certainly is growing in popularity, but I don't think the radicals are actually seriously challeging any real power structures, but they can be violent and the violence is growing.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

I hate to bust out the Sun Tzu here but... "The battle is won before it is even fought"

Any violence in the "revolution" should be merely... "clearing up" the reactionaries (Nazis, Fundies, etc) and remaining ruling class after the popular support has been won.

The battleground is in ideas, as it always has been.

P.S, sorry for the overly dramatic tone, it is one in the morning.

[Jack]

It's interesting that a "competitive" world view to both Communism and Capitalism--militant Islam takes the view that violence is a acceptable way to achieve their idea of world domination. I wonder if it's working--the Intifata, the attack on the WTC, the suicide bombings.

Islam certainly is growing in popularity, but I don't think the radicals are actually seriously challeging any real power structures, but they can be violent and the violence is growing.

It got a couple of people (including me) to read the Qur'an, a few months after 9/11 there were stories on the nes about all the new converts, because they had picked up the Qur'an.

[NecroCommie]

It's interesting that a "competitive" world view to both Communism and Capitalism--militant Islam takes the view that violence is a acceptable way to achieve their idea of world domination. I wonder if it's working--the Intifata, the attack on the WTC, the suicide bombings.

Islam certainly is growing in popularity, but I don't think the radicals are actually seriously challeging any real power structures, but they can be violent and the violence is growing.
Terrorism and violence are not synonymous. Terrorism is a form of violence. Most revolutionaries do not support terrorism.

[#FF0000]

Take a look at the IRA in Ireland, the black panthers towards the end of black civil rights, and the reactionary extremists in Palestine. All groups who use violence and terrorism have created more hostility and more conflict with their aggressors.

Those are all people who used violence in self-defence, though. Also, I believe a lot of Palestinians gave peaceful protest a chance back in the early days of the establishment of Israel. If I remember correctly, the British Army had them killed. Well, at least their slaughter made the Israelis and the West realize the error and injustice of their ways! Oh, wait.

I agree with the point you tried to make with these bad examples, though. Sort of, anyway. Violence is not always an effective means of social change. If a couple friends decide to bomb an office building over the weekend, Revolutionäre Zellen-styles (maybe make a night of it and go out for beers afterwards or something), they almost certainly aren't going to achieve much if they aren't tied to a greater working-class movement (though it's always nice to catch up with old friends).

So, I oppose violence only if it's totally useless like that (even if I might, maybe, sometimes, perhaps be saying "good for them" under my breath).


That's not to dismiss their causes. All examples above are legitimate causes and deserve support however what is apparent is that violence exacerbated the problem.

In the few situations you pointed out, maybe, but I just want to reiterate what Plagueround said earlier. Every superpower in the world was established through violence.


I don't advocate full on pacifism. I believe in many situations, where violence is the only resolution left, such as WW2, violence is necessary to resolve a conflict.

Why do you think violence was necessary in World War II?


I'm interested to know how revolutionaries who believe in violence to overthrow the ruling class justify their position.

Because every minute of every single day, somebody is dying of some preventable cause. Right now, someone is starving, dying of treatable illnesses, being persecuted for a host of absurd reasons (being gay, being an ethnic minority, being a woman), and turning to crime and self-destructive tendencies due, in part, to conditions that stem from stratification and class systems. And that's leaving out a host of other things, like government or business funded death-squads (See; Cheney, Coca-Cola).

Capitalism kills millions every single day, and you're telling me that it is ineffective to use violence against the people responsible for it? While all of history says otherwise? Color me skeptical, boyo.

[Robert]

Oh, go drink a nice cold coke and read something nice and positive, Rorschach. Like this:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_12092217?source=rss

I think I'll have a coke myself. Thanks for making me think of it.

[#FF0000]

Oh, go drink a nice cold coke and read something nice and positive, Rorschach. Like this:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_12092217?source=rss

I think I'll have a coke myself. Thanks for making me think of it.

Hey, hey, hey. I never said nothing positive ever came of any of this. Just that it's outweighed greatly by the harm caused.

[Pirate Utopian]

may i remember you that the whole communist struggle thing is based on the most basic moral value: equality
Even if that's the case. It's not the point.
It's not about morals, wich is why your moral objections are irrelevant.

[graffic]

Those are all people who used violence in self-defence, though.

Blowing one's self up in a shopping centre to forward a medieval theocracy involving the suppression of women and the stoning of gay's is not self-defense in my book.

And the same applies to the IRA. As for the black panthers, I have sympathy for them because they were oppressed by the police and most of their acts of violence were directed at police, not innocents.

If you believe terrorism is self-defence, or some sort deformed liberation movement, then surely you are just as morally corrupt as capitalists who don't mind killing kids in wars for a steady profit. Especially considering most terrorists I'm talking about seek to plunge the world into religious darkness.



the few situations you pointed out, maybe, but I just want to reiterate what Plagueround said earlier. Every superpower in the world was established through violence.

Exactly, thats why communism is different to capitalism. It will be established peacefully, through ideas.

It's hypocritical to accuse Capitalism of surviving through violence and then seek to establish communism through violence.



Why do you think violence was necessary in World War II?

Because, unlike many wars today, WW2 was an example of a genuine good V evil fight. Nothing else would have stopped Hitler so, as a last resort, violence, in my opinion, was justified.

[RGacky3]

Exactly, thats why communism is different to capitalism. It will be established peacefully, through ideas.

It's hypocritical to accuse Capitalism of surviving through violence and then seek to establish communism through violence.


The problem is, everytime Communist tries to establish itself, Capitalist and State powers throw all their guns against them. So I doubt it would happen that way.

[Bud Struggle]

The problem is, everytime Communist tries to establish itself, Capitalist and State powers throw all their guns against them. So I doubt it would happen that way.

It's interesting that Capitalism in Russia and Eastern Europe established itself quite peacefully during the Velvet Revolution.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Hardly. Its not really a huge leap from state capitalist to capitalist in terms of whom has the power. Even less so when you consider the old ruling class quickly become the new one. Another thing to remember is that the is one class whose amount of power did not change , the working class whom were not in power during the USSR and are not in power now in the Russian Fed.

[Jazzratt]

It's interesting that Capitalism in Russia and Eastern Europe established itself quite peacefully during the Velvet Revolution.

And killed more people than if it had done so violently.

[RGacky3]

It's interesting that Capitalism in Russia and Eastern Europe established itself quite peacefully during the Velvet Revolution.

That was'nt really a revolution. The state failed, and the ruling class ultimately restructured to fit in line with the rest of the world. It was'nt a Capitalist revolution, it was'nt the people dismanteling power, the USSR collapsed, the state failed, and thus people filled up the economic and political power vacum.

Its really impossible to have a Capitalist revolution, because Capitalism is a class system, I doubt the people would ever raise up to have bosses.

[graffic]

The problem is, everytime Communist tries to establish itself, Capitalist and State powers throw all their guns against them. So I doubt it would happen that way.

That's a good point. I suppose the key is to convert all capitalists into communists through education and learning...

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

They key is to have militant workers in key industries such as transport and power and to have a strong support base and to have a large proportion of the millitry rank and file mutinying.

[#FF0000]

Blowing one's self up in a shopping centre to forward a medieval theocracy involving the suppression of women and the stoning of gay's is not self-defense in my book.

Except that isn't why people blow themselves up. Do you think somebody is going to blow themselves up if they see another way of doing things?

I'mma go ahead and quote JFK here. "Those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent revolution inevitable". That is pretty much the case here.


And the same applies to the IRA. As for the black panthers, I have sympathy for them because they were oppressed by the police and most of their acts of violence were directed at police, not innocents.

And Palestinians aren't oppressed? The people that set up settlements on their land are innocent?


If you believe terrorism is self-defense, or some sort deformed liberation movement, then surely you are just as morally corrupt as capitalists who don't mind killing kids in wars for a steady profit. Especially considering most terrorists I'm talking about seek to plunge the world into religious darkness.

Define "terrorism".


Exactly, thats why communism is different to capitalism. It will be established peacefully, through ideas.

Oh neat. Is that based on anything?


It's hypocritical to accuse Capitalism of surviving through violence and then seek to establish communism through violence.

We don't seek to establish it through violence. This is the core of the argument that you are missing. We aren't for violence. If it were possible to have a peaceful revolution, I don't think anyone here would say "no" to it.

The problem is that you assume that the state and the people with power would just give it up without a fight. That is what makes violent revolution almost certainly necessary. The fact that the ruling class will use violence to stop us. It is them that controls how violent the revolution is.


Because, unlike many wars today, WW2 was an example of a genuine good V evil fight. Nothing else would have stopped Hitler so, as a last resort, violence, in my opinion, was justified.

That's our reasoning, though. No matter how peaceful we want to be, the ruling classes will most likely use violence against us. I mean, holy shit, you're taking about a class of people who will hire people to kill unionists if it gets in the way of their profit. What do you expect them to do when we actually pose a threat to their actual power.

ALSO: Really? Capitalists are good, then? The class that would throw us under a bus if it yielded a profit are "good"? You have such an ignorant, childish, black-and-white perspective of history that I just decided to switch my major to Secondary Education in Social Studies right after I make this post so there won't be more people like you.

[Dejavu]

I don't think violence as a primary means of bringing about social change for the better is a very sound method. Self-defense aside, I believe violence is self-defeating.

If you and a gang of people try to bring about what you believe is better for society through violence then your objective has already failed. The only reason you would need violence is to force change upon those that fundamentally do not understand the merits of change. In fact, it would further alienate people from understanding your goals and they could interpret it as oppressive.

Believing violence is the way of advancing a better society for our species ( no matter what ideal you cling to) has been the downfall of our species, I believe. I truly believe violence breeds violence.

I'm not a full pacifist or Buddhist or anything like that. But the revolution is much more difficult than physically asserting your dominance and ideology. It is a mind war among the whole species.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If we look at history and at basic aspects of democratic law we come to the conclusion that violence is wrong and, more importantly, - counter-productive in achieving its aims.

Take a look at the IRA in Ireland, the black panthers towards the end of black civil rights, and the reactionary extremists in Palestine. All groups who use violence and terrorism have created more hostility and more conflict with their aggressors.


Or you could look at Vietnam or French Algeria and come to different conclusions about the effectiveness of violence.

Violence is an effective tool to achieve certain short term goals. It's not appropriate in all situations, but to look at violence as wrong across-the-board is kind of reductionist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for bringing this up. This is the lynchpin upon which revolutionary theory founders: the sanction of violence. I've read analysis that suggests that the social democrat proletariat in Germany during the Russian revolution bet correctly that their lives would improve substantially by using parliamentary means rather than those chosen by the Bolshevik brethren (I'm NOT saying that Bolsheviks instigated violence), somehow corroborated by game-theory. MLK Jr., also coming to socialist conclusions at the end of his life also eschewed the use of violence. Certainly Tolstoy, a rabid anarchist at the end of his life also came to this conclusion.

I haven't any answers, perhaps it's a matter of where one draws the line on where violence is the only option left. I know that many revolutionaries will argue that violence can only be sanctioned as a defensive measure as a means of consolidating the gains of the revolution, but historically there's plenty of evidence, e.g. that Lenin instigated terrorism as an ongoing political tactic. I only feel that workers generally draw the line on social change at the point of sanctioning violence, perhaps mistakenly so.

MLK nevertheless realized that his immediate goals would only be achieved by means of mass extra-legal action. Every major class struggle has its critical points around such action, whether there's violence involved or otherwise. In today's world, that would mean bossnappings, sit-down strikes, illegal strikes (even mere picketing in the UK :rolleyes: ), and so on.

[graffic]

Except that isn't why people blow themselves up. Do you think somebody is going to blow themselves up if they see another way of doing things?

Of course, I sympathise with their anger but you can't justify suicide bombings, no matter what the circumstances.


Define "terrorism".

I'm not sure what the literal definition is but the universal understanding is - blowing up women and children. Killing innocent people - the most extreme form of collective punishment.

I think your straying away from the point, I want to an explanation of how terrorism is an act of "self defense".




Oh neat. Is that based on anything?

John Lennon + the majority of influential leftists




The problem is that you assume that the state and the people with power would just give it up without a fight. That is what makes violent revolution almost certainly necessary. The fact that the ruling class will use violence to stop us. It is them that controls how violent the revolution is.

OK, thats cool but surely through education people can understand the idea of the re-distribution of wealth and then start voting with their ideas and get in a party further to the left.

Rather than kill people just because they are rich.

[Killfacer]

It's all about context. It may well be harder to turn the other cheek when a schoolmate calls you name, but when your family is being bombed, abused and oppressed it becomes frankly silly.

All this turning the other cheek crap is bullshit. Nearly all the people you listed, turned to violence AFTER years of attempting peaceful negotiations. When this avenue fails, there is only one resort; violence.

[Green Dragon]

The problem is, everytime Communist tries to establish itself, Capitalist and State powers throw all their guns against them. So I doubt it would happen that way.


The problem is more along the line that the communist will insist that the whole world be communist. Failure of this occuring is often cited hereabouts as a reason for the failure of socialism over the past century or so.

[RGacky3]

The problem is more along the line that the communist will insist that the whole world be communist. Failure of this occuring is often cited hereabouts as a reason for the failure of socialism over the past century or so.

Thats rediculous, when Anarchists in spain set up communism they wern't trying to take over the world, neither in Ukrane, the Zapatistas in Mexico pretty much just want to be left alone, the same with the Oaxacan APPO. Now Ideologically do these groups believe in communism around the world? Probably, because whats right is right and oppression and injustice is wrong where ever it is.

But thinking that Capitalist and State powers throw their guns against communism, because they thinkg they will force everyone to be communist (btw I'm talking about real communism here, which does'nt include the USSR), the reason is, simply, they are afraid of loosing their power, and afraid of the example it will give their subjects.

[revolution inaction]

OK, thats cool but surely through education people can understand the idea of the re-distribution of wealth and then start voting with their ideas and get in a party further to the left.

Parliamentary means have been shown to be ineffective at bringing about socialism



Rather than kill people just because they are rich.

No sane revolutionaries are advocating killing people because they are rich.

[RGacky3]

Parliamentary means have been shown to be ineffective at bringing about socialism

The reason for that (if I may) is that no matter who's in office the power structure is the same, the Capitalists have the power, everyone else does not, the Politicians don't have the power. Also look at one example of a relatively socialist guy that came into power the "legal" parlimentary way, I'm talking about hugo chavez, look at the type of violence that happened trying to stop his reforms, at the same time him trying to derail the Capitalist tyranny through the State, a set up that was designed for and by the Capitalists, which makes it much much harder, not only that, but even then, there was a lot of violence. Plus the state is unjustified anyway.

[Rouge]

Have you forgotten America was founded on violence by the colonial people who came here? Are you saying because they use violence that they're wrong for doing so? For protecting their freedom?

[Trystan]

If we look at history and at basic aspects of democratic law we come to the conclusion that violence is wrong and, more importantly, - counter-productive in achieving its aims.

Take a look at the IRA in Ireland, the black panthers towards the end of black civil rights, and the reactionary extremists in Palestine. All groups who use violence and terrorism have created more hostility and more conflict with their aggressors.

That's not to dismiss their causes. All examples above are legitimate causes and deserve support however what is apparent is that violence exacerbated the problem.

My thesis is it's easy to react and fight fire with fire. It's hard to be strong and turn the other cheek. And I understand that sometimes people can be so overcome with emotion that they can't help themselves.

I don't advocate full on pacifism. I believe in many situations, where violence is the only resolution left, such as WW2, violence is necessary to resolve a conflict.

I'm interested to know how revolutionaries who believe in violence to overthrow the ruling class justify their position.

You mention the IRA: their opponents, the British military forces, have been successful in achieving their aims through violence. And couldn't you use your thesis to condemn a war which you think was justified? I.E. WW2? The conflict didn't end with that war and but it was still justified wasn't it? Of course it was.

I wouldn't say that violence necessarily exacerbates problems - actually it can be pretty damn good in getting things done. Personally, I think it should be avoided unless there are no other options, but violence should not be excluded completely.

[Trystan]

By the way, the so-called "democracy" we have now is not the only non-violent way forward. People always seem to think that it is.

[Hoxhaist]

It's interesting that a "competitive" world view to both Communism and Capitalism--militant Islam takes the view that violence is a acceptable way to achieve their idea of world domination. I wonder if it's working--the Intifata, the attack on the WTC, the suicide bombings.

Islam certainly is growing in popularity, but I don't think the radicals are actually seriously challeging any real power structures, but they can be violent and the violence is growing.

They strike because the people are beginning to support their ideology as the way to escape the exploitation they feel in capitalism and imperialism.

[graffic]

You mention the IRA: their opponents, the British military forces, have been successful in achieving their aims through violence.

Thats why I would like communism to be established differently. Don't you think it would do the ideology a huge credit if it was established in the opposite way to the way capitalist, nation states are established? Considering capitalism and communism are diametrically opposed in all other areas.


I wouldn't say that violence necessarily exacerbates problems - actually it can be pretty damn good in getting things done. Personally, I think it should be avoided unless there are no other options, but violence should not be excluded completely.

Yes, I agree with this point. It's clear that humanity progresses forward faster after huge world wars.

[Pirate Utopian]

It's not about being the polar opposite of everything the capitalist does.
It's about how are we gonna achieve a successful revolution for wich we cannot disown violence.

[synthesis]

Thats why I would like communism to be established differently. Don't you think it would do the ideology a huge credit if it was established in the opposite way to the way capitalist, nation states are established? Considering capitalism and communism are diametrically opposed in all other areas.

First, you don't want any kind of communism at all. Second, we're not fucking hippies. A revolution is a revolution.

[graffic]

First, you don't want any kind of communism at all. Second, we're not fucking hippies. A revolution is a revolution.

What makes you say that?

I'm an idealist, I find it hard to believe communism would actually work right now in the UK or the US but the ideology and ideas make a lot of sense to me.

I believe capitalism is evil and I want it to end it but I can't say it feels rational to start talking about overthrowing one of the most forward thinking progressive societies in the world. Here in the U.K Ive got the chance to go to University, just as every other youth has, and I've got the chance to get a job, just as everyone else has - where If i work hard, I will earn more money and progress up the ladder. Is it worth scrapping all of this for a socialist revolution that most people will hate and want nothing to do with?

It's a sobering thought that communism has failed every time it's been tried.

So for now, I consider myself an international socialist, but I'm not going to go around talking seriously about steps towards revolution.

Especially when people talking seriously about those steps *on this forum*, most likely arm chair activists, have restricted me for a stupid reason and regularly engage in petty arguments at every chance available - the biggest sign of insecurity or immaturity.

Not all people fit that description, there are some very intelligent decent people on this forum ^

[synthesis]

It's a sobering thought that communism has failed every time it's been tried.

Communists have failed; communism has not.



Especially when people talking seriously about those steps *on this forum*, most likely arm chair activists, have restricted me for a stupid reason and regularly engage in petty arguments at every chance available - the biggest sign of insecurity or immaturity.

For me, it's more because it seems like you came here specifically to apologize for Israeli apartheid, but there could be other factors I don't know about. Your "socialism" seems designed more to garner sympathy than to actually express your political goals.

[robbo203]

What makes you say that?

I'm an idealist, I find it hard to believe communism would actually work right now in the UK or the US but the ideology and ideas make a lot of sense to me.

I believe capitalism is evil and I want it to end it but I can't say it feels rational to start talking about overthrowing one of the most forward thinking progressive societies in the world. Here in the U.K Ive got the chance to go to University, just as every other youth has, and I've got the chance to get a job, just as everyone else has - where If i work hard, I will earn more money and progress up the ladder. Is it worth scrapping all of this for a socialist revolution that most people will hate and want nothing to do with?

It's a sobering thought that communism has failed every time it's been tried.

So for now, I consider myself an international socialist, but I'm not going to go around talking seriously about steps towards revolution.

Especially when people talking seriously about those steps *on this forum*, most likely arm chair activists, have restricted me for a stupid reason and regularly engage in petty arguments at every chance available - the biggest sign of insecurity or immaturity.

Not all people fit that description, there are some very intelligent decent people on this forum ^


Communism has not been tried - or rather the preconditions for it to suceed have not been fully met - mass communist consciousness and a developed economic infrastructure to support a free access non monetary economy. In Russia 1917 neither of these conditions were met. The inevitable outcome was capitalism or, to be precise, a system of state capitalism with a new ruling class represented by the Party noimneklatura.

I do not believe a revolution cannnot be accomplished peacefully and democratrically. That was not the view of Marx et al either. Violence as a strategy breeds authoritarianismn and hierarchy and is frankly counter-prpductive. Whikle I dont rule out the possibility of violence I think it is very unwise to build a revolutuionary strategy on violece. In fact trying to take on the state by force is downright suicidal folly

For what its worth I am at a loss to know why you have restricted status either. There are stalinists on this list who support a brutal system of state capitalism in my book who are not restricted. Not that I hold with restricting them any more than I do you. I believe in free speech

[JerseyDevil]

I'm kinda... messed up with this. I'm mostly a pacifist,(usually having to do with school fights and stuff like that) and I agree with peaceful protest, but I also believe in armed revolution.

[Hoxhaist]

violent revolution was necessary in the Bolshevik Revolution

[trivas7]

violent revolution was necessary in the Bolshevik Revolution
OTC, the takeover of government buildings on Oct.24 and the seizure of the Winter Palace on Oct. 25, 1917 by Bolsheviks were rather bloodless affairs.

[Hoxhaist]

OTC, the takeover of government buildings on Oct.24 and the seizure of the Winter Palace on Oct. 25, 1917 by Bolsheviks were rather bloodless affairs.
They needed to violently oppose the reaction of the White Russians or they would have been crushed

[graffic]

Communism has not been tried - or rather the preconditions for it to suceed have not been fully met - mass communist consciousness and a developed economic infrastructure to support a free access non monetary economy. In Russia 1917 neither of these conditions were met. The inevitable outcome was capitalism or, to be precise, a system of state capitalism with a new ruling class represented by the Party noimneklatura.

I do not believe a revolution cannnot be accomplished peacefully and democratrically. That was not the view of Marx et al either. Violence as a strategy breeds authoritarianismn and hierarchy and is frankly counter-prpductive. Whikle I dont rule out the possibility of violence I think it is very unwise to build a revolutuionary strategy on violece. In fact trying to take on the state by force is downright suicidal folly

For what its worth I am at a loss to know why you have restricted status either. There are stalinists on this list who support a brutal system of state capitalism in my book who are not restricted. Not that I hold with restricting them any more than I do you. I believe in free speech

I agree that the attempts to establish communism so far have not worked and are getting better every time its tried. I don't think there has been anything yet which would have pleased Karl Marx.

My main problem with scrapping the current nationalist state and establishing a communist commonwealth is that so many people would want nothing to do with it.

It's similar to religion, you can be a communist in a capitalist society but you can't be a capitalist in a communist society. I don't think it would work in the UK or the US, not for a very long time anyway.

[RGacky3]

I agree that the attempts to establish communism so far have not worked and are getting better every time its tried. I don't think there has been anything yet which would have pleased Karl Marx.

Many have worked, in the sense that the functioned well as a society, however many of them were put down violently. Also, who cares what would please Marx.


My main problem with scrapping the current nationalist state and establishing a communist commonwealth is that so many people would want nothing to do with it.

You know this how? the reason people support the state now is because of the conditions that exist under capitalism, it seams nessesary, not because they nessesarily LIKE the idea of a state.


but you can't be a capitalist in a communist society.

Why would anyone be a be a Capitalist in a communist society? Do you see many people in democratic societies calling for a return to monarchy?

[Bud Struggle]

Why would anyone be a be a Capitalist in a communist society?

Hey, why would anyone want to be Communist in a Capitalist society?

Teenage angst. :D

[mikelepore]

I'm interested to know how revolutionaries who believe in violence to overthrow the ruling class justify their position.

Their argument usually boils down to the fact that they are not willing to wait until the people want to be emancipated.

(I shall limit my response to the conditions in countries that have representatives governments elected by the people.)

The working class, which is 99 percent of the population and therefore 99 percent of the voters, already have control over what kind of system they shall live under. The problem isn't that the people aren't asked for their say in the matter. The problem is that the people believe in the system that oppresses them, and, when allowed to choose, they keep choosing it.

Therefore a revolutionary has the hardest job -- to persuade people to want and believe in the opposite of what they currently want and believe in.

This isn't like the days of Spartacus, when rebellion consisted of breaking your chains, picking up a sword, and marching. Today rebellion consists of people who are already in complete control, but habitually vote to continue the institutions that trample on them, to realize that they can make another choice if they wanted to, become persuaded that they should make that other choice, and then make it.

***

The following quotation shows what I mean when I often say that the socialist education of the working class is mainly a conceptual subject, in the same sense that math and science are conceptual subjects:

""Most members of the working class want capitalism. This is not because they like the wars, wage-freezes, soul-destroying jobs, and shabby houses which capitalism necessarily thrusts upon them. They want capitalism because they have cockeyed notions about the way it works, which lead them to suppose that their problems can be solved within capitalism, or, alternatively, could not be solved under any other system."

--- From a 1968 editorial in "The Western Socialist" magazine

***

In that case, what could possibly be the purpose of violent tactics? Only to show that one is trying to force something on the people, and not patient enough to wait until the people choose to do it themselves.

But if the people don't do it themselves, and it's forced upon them with violent measures, then the outcome can never be democratic; even if the "revolution" were successful, the outcome could only be totalitarianism, another form of class rule, a change of masters.

[RGacky3]

Hey, why would anyone want to be Communist in a Capitalist society?


Because you don't like being unjustly poor, and not ever being able to reap the benefits of your work, and other people getting rich off your work, and not having control over your life or your circumstances, having to slave for hours for simple survival.

Now explain the other way around.

[Bud Struggle]

Because you don't like being unjustly poor, and not ever being able to reap the benefits of your work, and other people getting rich off your work, and not having control over your life or your circumstances, having to slave for hours for simple survival.

Now explain the other way around.

(I can't speak for anywhere else) but the United States could be anything it wants to be. The people have the vote and as far as I can see 95% of the people here are WORKERS of one sort or another. Maybe 5% are Bourgeois. If the workers wanted to bring in Communism--you wouldn't need any Revolution, they could simply vote in whatever they wanted. That's the beauty of Democracy, it makes Revolution quite useless. Why bother with all of the guns and deaths and fights--when you could just vote in Communism as easily as voting in Obama? (Not that Obaba is a Communist.)

As to why? People enjoy the chance to become millionaires just like they enjoy buying lottery tickets. Almost all will never win--but they enjoy the gamble. There is no gamble with Communism.

That's my guess.

[Robert]

As to why? People enjoy the chance to become millionaires just like they enjoy buying lottery tickets. Almost all will never win--but they enjoy the gamble. There is no gamble with Communism.


Eminently correct, TK.

That's why Who Wants to be a Millionaire draws more viewers than Who Wants to Go Get Re-educated in the Rice Fields?

Most nights anyway.

[Bud Struggle]

Eminently correct, TK.

That's why Who Wants to be a Millionaire draws more viewers than Who Wants to Go Get Re-educated in the Rice Fields?

Most nights anyway.

For all it's equality and all it's fairness Communism has one MAJOR drawback.

It's dull. :(

[RGacky3]

For all it's equality and all it's fairness Communism has one MAJOR drawback.

It's dull.

I think working 8 hours a day to pay rent and afford food and barely survive until your 70 or something is pretty dull too.


but the United States could be anything it wants to be. The people have the vote

You still believe America is a real democracy? That truely the people shape american society? You still believe that? I damn well hope not.


If the workers wanted to bring in Communism--you wouldn't need any Revolution, they could simply vote in whatever they wanted. That's the beauty of Democracy, it makes Revolution quite useless. Why bother with all of the guns and deaths and fights--when you could just vote in Communism as easily as voting in Obama? (Not that Obaba is a Communist.)


Do you remember what happend when Mr. Debs got .... 6% of the vote, only 6, well not far of later he was thrown in prison the IWW was ruthlessly persicuted and the red scare started, obviously it was'nt just that election, but simply the idea that socialism had a chance.

Do you think the ruling class of AMerica would ever allow socialism to even become close to being an option legally? Stop dreaming.


People enjoy the chance to become millionaires just like they enjoy buying lottery tickets. Almost all will never win--but they enjoy the gamble. There is no gamble with Communism.


Communism is'nt about actual equality, meaning every ones the same, it means equal rights, and freedom. Communism actually gives people more of a chance to prosper because they actually have control over their own lives and their own work and the fruits of their work.

[Bud Struggle]

I think working 8 hours a day to pay rent and afford food and barely survive until your 70 or something is pretty dull too. Indeed it is. But everyone has the opportunity to do something about that in their lives.




You still believe America is a real democracy? That truely the people shape american society? You still believe that? I damn well hope not. I believe the opportunity is there for Americans to do whatever they want. so yes, in theory Americans could vote in Communism and I believe there is more chance of people voting in Communism than them having a Revolution.

I think they can if they want--I think media, etc. would try to stop them, but in the end people CAN do what they want.




Do you remember what happend when Mr. Debs got .... 6% of the vote, only 6, well not far of later he was thrown in prison the IWW was ruthlessly persicuted and the red scare started, obviously it was'nt just that election, but simply the idea that socialism had a chance. I don't see that happening now. He'd just be a curiosity, just as the IWW is now. Like the "Commie" on Seinfeld.


Do you think the ruling class of AMerica would ever allow socialism to even become close to being an option legally? Stop dreaming. I don't know--the Soviet take over factor is long gone so I think it could happen, but to be honest Americans are pretty happy with the way things are now--and I don't think there will be a change for a long time.




Communism is'nt about actual equality, meaning every ones the same, it means equal rights, and freedom. Communism actually gives people more of a chance to prosper because they actually have control over their own lives and their own work and the fruits of their work. I understand and I believe you. The problem with Communism now is the spectre of "Communisms Past" the Russians, the Chinese. Nobody wants that. Your brand of Communism, if people understood it correctly would really work--but you have one hell of a sales job ahead of you to get your message across.

[RGacky3]

Indeed it is. But everyone has the opportunity to do something about that in their lives.

Not really, not everyone, not under Capitalism, not much at all ... Unless you have a lot of money.


I don't see that happening now. He'd just be a curiosity, just as the IWW is now. Like the "Commie" on Seinfeld.

What I'm saying is is he actually gained support, America is'nt a democracy, if Socialism ever gained support in America it would be stamped out as hard and quickly as possible by the rulling class, as it has been done in the past.


I believe the opportunity is there for Americans to do whatever they want. so yes, in theory Americans could vote in Communism and I believe there is more chance of people voting in Communism than them having a Revolution.

I think they can if they want--I think media, etc. would try to stop them, but in the end people CAN do what they want.


Ultimately ANYONE CAN do what they want, meaning its possible, in any country. But don't try and pretends its more possible in America, because its not, not even close.


but to be honest Americans are pretty happy with the way things are now--and I don't think there will be a change for a long time.


Really? Where you getting this information? I don't think happy is the word, I think helpless is better.


The problem with Communism now is the spectre of "Communisms Past" the Russians, the Chinese. Nobody wants that. Your brand of Communism, if people understood it correctly would really work--but you have one hell of a sales job ahead of you to get your message across.

Yeah ... Don't call it communism. :) Problem solved.

[ZeroNowhere]

Do you remember what happend when Mr. Debs got .... 6% of the vote, only 6, well not far of later he was thrown in prison the IWW was ruthlessly persicuted and the red scare started, obviously it was'nt just that election, but simply the idea that socialism had a chance.
Um, wasn't that because he was opposing WWI? He was hardly the only socialist thrown in prison for that.

[RGacky3]

Um, wasn't that because he was opposing WWI? He was hardly the only socialist thrown in prison for that.

Officially, Yeah it was, but don't think the threat he posed to the system did'nt have anything to do with it.

[Spooky]

Maybe it's all the world superpowers that were established through violent revolution? You cited all the failures and left out all the huge successes.


Yes, speaking of revolution having successes:

Let us not forget that the great leap forward in political and social advances that we now enjoy today were created by a revolution. A bloody revolution, at that.

It's called the French Revolution. Its legacy is the basis of modern democracy and let us not forget that it was incredibly bloody.

Now, what was the OP saying about revolution being against the moral fabric of democracy?

[Spooky]

(I can't speak for anywhere else) but the United States could be anything it wants to be. The people have the vote and as far as I can see 95% of the people here are WORKERS of one sort or another. Maybe 5% are Bourgeois. If the workers wanted to bring in Communism--you wouldn't need any Revolution, they could simply vote in whatever they wanted. That's the beauty of Democracy, it makes Revolution quite useless. Why bother with all of the guns and deaths and fights--when you could just vote in Communism as easily as voting in Obama? (Not that Obaba is a Communist.)

As to why? People enjoy the chance to become millionaires just like they enjoy buying lottery tickets. Almost all will never win--but they enjoy the gamble. There is no gamble with Communism.

That's my guess.

Let us not forget Marx's major contribution to the understanding of society. If you could sum up all of Marx's works into one sentence, I would say it would be the following:

"What appears not be political actually is." What at first glance is not political, economics for example, is in fact only political. His key insight was that as long as a state apparatus exists and economic relations are still based around the means of production of material needs in society, you will necessarily have class domination. In incrementally adjusting the society, these two structures remain, leaving class relations unscathed.

In Brazil the largest and most coherent party is the "Partido dos Trabalhadores" aka the PT. The PT, when originally formed, was incredibly devoted to worker's causes, which is how it managed to gain power in a relatively party-less system. As more and more workers bought into the PT's platform, it gained more and more power in the legislative body. When it really became "a nationally viable party during the 1990s it broadened its original message, which reflected the interests of workers as a class, to include the middle classes, informal sector workers, and even business interests" (cited in "Brazilian Politics" written by Alfred P. Montero, p. 98). It had to do this in order to survive in the liberal democratic capitalist system. In order to stay a viable party, it had to adopt bourgeois political sentiment. Or, as Marxists often say, in order to participate in the system one must become part of the system. The PT has abandoned, in part, the worker's concerns.

The top 2% of the population in Brazil own 45% of the wealth. Class disparity is sharp within Brazil. For decades now there has been wide public support for an increase the wages. It was taken up by the Cardoso government. And, indeed, he did manage to increase national wages. However, in 8 years in terms, he only managed to raise it just enough to throw a bone to the people: to make them complacent without risking harm to industry (or, in more refined terms: by raising minimum wages, he not only placated the masses by giving them just enough to be complacent, but also did little enough not to risk political power by his bourgois peers in power). It was only a 5% increase. Take into account that during this time, inflation in Brazil was astronomical, so this increase amounted to almost nothing, simply a number. Lula has also supported "increasing wages" while in Office, however, he has only supported bare minimum increases, and has done nothing to actually change that.

So, after these long examples, my points are 1) not only do parties who are participating in the system come to reflect the interests of the capitalist system itself (as it is necessary in order to participate to affect "change"), but 2) Many of the political reforms that are often enacted are simply measures to make people complacent in order not to destabilize the system.

So, it would appear that "simply voting" in a new system appears not to be as easy it was conceived, and that you are severely overestimating the power that voters have to affect true, substantial change.



Also, as an aside, there is also the argument that the gleaming trait of democracy, elections, actually _do not_ guarantee that politicians remain faithful to their election promises. Which, could, in essense, enable unbroken class rule. I will not get into that here (I can, though), but, just saying.

[Decolonize The Left]

If we look at history and at basic aspects of democratic law we come to the conclusion that violence is wrong and, more importantly, - counter-productive in achieving its aims.

Your claim that 'violence is wrong' is unjustified - 'history' and 'basic democratic law' are awful vague...


I'm interested to know how revolutionaries who believe in violence to overthrow the ruling class justify their position.

"Belief in violence" isn't a fair characterization of the majority of leftist positions on the issue. From what I understand, it's more of an acceptance of the possibility and a willingness to engage in said possibility should it be necessary.

Most leftists adopt the position articulated (rather well) by mikelepore in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1415873&postcount=62).

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Let us not forget Marx's major contribution to the understanding of society. If you could sum up all of Marx's works into one sentence, I would say it would be the following:

"What appears not be political actually is." What at first glance is not political, economics for example, is in fact only political. His key insight was that as long as a state apparatus exists and economic relations are still based around the means of production of material needs in society, you will necessarily have class domination. In incrementally adjusting the society, these two structures remain, leaving class relations unscathed. My objection isn't to Marx--it's to those people that "invented" Socialist societies that turned into authoritarian nightmares.


In Brazil the largest and most coherent party is the "Partido dos Trabalhadores" aka the PT. The PT, when originally formed, was incredibly devoted to worker's causes, which is how it managed to gain power in a relatively party-less system. As more and more workers bought into the PT's platform, it gained more and more power in the legislative body. When it really became "a nationally viable party during the 1990s it broadened its original message, which reflected the interests of workers as a class, to include the middle classes, informal sector workers, and even business interests" (cited in "Brazilian Politics" written by Alfred P. Montero, p. 98). It had to do this in order to survive in the liberal democratic capitalist system. In order to stay a viable party, it had to adopt bourgeois political sentiment. Or, as Marxists often say, in order to participate in the system one must become part of the system. The PT has abandoned, in part, the worker's concerns. You have a point there about Brazil. I really don't have enough information to coment about it--but I certainly understand what you are saying.


The top 2% of the population in Brazil own 45% of the wealth. Class disparity is sharp within Brazil. For decades now there has been wide public support for an increase the wages. It was taken up by the Cardoso government. And, indeed, he did manage to increase national wages. However, in 8 years in terms, he only managed to raise it just enough to throw a bone to the people: to make them complacent without risking harm to industry (or, in more refined terms: by raising minimum wages, he not only placated the masses by giving them just enough to be complacent, but also did little enough not to risk political power by his bourgois peers in power). It was only a 5% increase. Take into account that during this time, inflation in Brazil was astronomical, so this increase amounted to almost nothing, simply a number. Lula has also supported "increasing wages" while in Office, however, he has only supported bare minimum increases, and has done nothing to actually change that.Well, I do think you need to make a change there (easier said than done.) Your system works badly for everyone concerned--if the rich let loose some of their money and gave people a better standard of living there would be a better chance Brazil would grow and prosper--for everyone's sake.


So, after these long examples, my points are 1) not only do parties who are participating in the system come to reflect the interests of the capitalist system itself (as it is necessary in order to participate to affect "change"), but 2) Many of the political reforms that are often enacted are simply measures to make people complacent in order not to destabilize the system.

So, it would appear that "simply voting" in a new system appears not to be as easy it was conceived, and that you are severely overestimating the power that voters have to affect true, substantial change. Again I see your point--but there's not much chance of a Revolution either.




Also, as an aside, there is also the argument that the gleaming trait of democracy, elections, actually _do not_ guarantee that politicians remain faithful to their election promises. Which, could, in essense, enable unbroken class rule. I will not get into that here (I can, though), but, just saying. Good post, thanks.

[Pogue]

Hey, why would anyone want to be Communist in a Capitalist society?

Teenage angst. :D

Does that make you the creepy old Catholic bloke who hangs around a board full of teenagers then?

[Pogue]

My objection isn't to Marx--it's to those people that "invented" Socialist societies that turned into authoritarian nightmares.


Welcome to anarchism?


You have a point there about Brazil. I really don't have enough information to coment about it--but I certainly understand what you are saying.

Yeh, reformism doesn't work.


Well, I do think you need to make a change there (easier said than done.) Your system works badly for everyone concerned--if the rich let loose some of their money and gave people a better standard of living there would be a better chance Brazil would grow and prosper--for everyone's sake.


Capitalism isn't about developement 'for everyone's sake', its about representing the interests of the ruling class. If it was about making life better for everyone, as their rhetoric would have you believe, we wouldn't be in such a mess at the moment.


Again I see your point--but there's not much chance of a Revolution either.

You always say this. Why not? And that doesn't mean there doesn't need to be one.

[Bud Struggle]

Does that make you the creepy old Catholic bloke who hangs around a board full of teenagers then?

I plan to be a "Glorious Leader" right after all the fighting over when you guys get around to having your Revolution. :D

Let me point out also, being a Christian is the reason I think there should be fairness and equality in the world.

[Ele'ill]

Let me point out also, being a Christian is the reason I think there should be fairness and equality in the world.

So if you weren't a christian then you'd be a really bad person?

[Bud Struggle]

So if you weren't a christian then you'd be a really bad person?

I would question why there should be any reason for thing to be "fair." I imagine I would feel less compassion for others--but that's just conjecture. Right now my interest in Socialism and Communism come from the Christian idea that all men and women are "sons and daughters of God." I don't know if I'd have that much of an interest if I didn't have a belief in God.

[Hoxhaist]

I agree that the attempts to establish communism so far have not worked and are getting better every time its tried. I don't think there has been anything yet which would have pleased Karl Marx.

My main problem with scrapping the current nationalist state and establishing a communist commonwealth is that so many people would want nothing to do with it.

It's similar to religion, you can be a communist in a capitalist society but you can't be a capitalist in a communist society. I don't think it would work in the UK or the US, not for a very long time anyway.
Who cares if certain people dont want it? the people who dont want anything to do with it are the capitalists, religious chauvinists, and ethnic chauvinists and they are the reason why the revolution is necessary!

[synthesis]

the Christian idea that all men and women are "sons and daughters of God."

So Jesus isn't actually special after all?

[RGacky3]

f the rich let loose some of their money and gave people a better standard of living there would be a better chance Brazil would grow and prosper--for everyone's sake.

Its not about the rich letting loose some of their money, it should'nt be up to them, ehtically, its not their wealth, the poor should take it whether the rich like it or not. I don't want the poor to ask for freedom and justice, I want them to take it.

[Bud Struggle]

Its not about the rich letting loose some of their money, it should'nt be up to them, ehtically, its not their wealth, the poor should take it whether the rich like it or not. I don't want the poor to ask for freedom and justice, I want them to take it.

My problem is that without a God--there is no standard of ethics. Without a God each man's will is soverign in the world. Now some people can get together all agree on certain standards, a Social Contract, they can, because they area collective, even agree in enforcing those standards with force--but all that is arbitrary. No ethics is any "better" than any other ethics.

[RGacky3]

My problem is that without a God--there is no standard of ethics. Without a God each man's will is soverign in the world. Now some people can get together all agree on certain standards, a Social Contract, they can, because they area collective, even agree in enforcing those standards with force--but all that is arbitrary. No ethics is any "better" than any other ethics.

True, however almost everyone has ultimately the same ethics, the problem is really being consistant and understanding the situation. Which is why when you have an ethical problem you apply your ethics to other things, and see if it works, if not most people would question their ethics.

Buy my point was, when I say its "ethically" not their wealth, what I ment was rationally, in other words they have no logical defense of their wealth. So, I say, its not about the wealthy giving up the wealth that in reality they have no right to, its about the poor taking the wealth that they do have a right too.

I should'nt have used the word ethics. Rationally or logically is better.

[Bud Struggle]

Buy my point was, when I say its "ethically" not their wealth, what I ment was rationally, in other words they have no logical defense of their wealth. So, I say, its not about the wealthy giving up the wealth that in reality they have no right to, its about the poor taking the wealth that they do have a right too.

I should'nt have used the word ethics. Rationally or logically is better.

Yea, but one could argue with that too. Animals like wolves and tigers have their territories that provide them with food. They drive off the weaker wolves and tigers that invade their areas. Why can't I drive off weaker people that want to take over my land or posession? Maybe that's logical?

[RGacky3]

Why can't I drive off weaker people that want to take over my land or posession? Maybe that's logical?

You can, sure, but I'm trying to get the majority of the people liberate themselves. In other words, I'm trying to get people to take ... not beg for ... what they have a right too. This is why there is revolution.

Also your argument is the exact argument against your own statement here


if the rich let loose some of their money and gave people a better standard of living there would be a better chance Brazil would grow and prosper--for everyone's sake.

[Bud Struggle]

You can, sure, but I'm trying to get the majority of the people liberate themselves. In other words, I'm trying to get people to take ... not beg for ... what they have a right too. This is why there is revolution.

Also your argument is the exact argument against your own statement here

My point is that when it comes to human affairs EVERYTHING is logical. I live on a lake in Florida and I have my coffee in the morning out on the back porch and watch all these (dumb?) animals--lots of birds, but and occasional turkey or fox or rabbit--and they all know their place in their economic system. All are in harmony with what they are and where they belong.

And then you look at humans--a thousand times smarter in a thousand different ways--and we don't have a clue how to live with one another. Communism, Capitalism, Objectivism, etc. All trying to mimic what the rest of nature does without even a thought.

[STJ]

If we look at history and at basic aspects of democratic law we come to the conclusion that violence is wrong and, more importantly, - counter-productive in achieving its aims.

Take a look at the IRA in Ireland, the black panthers towards the end of black civil rights, and the reactionary extremists in Palestine. All groups who use violence and terrorism have created more hostility and more conflict with their aggressors.

That's not to dismiss their causes. All examples above are legitimate causes and deserve support however what is apparent is that violence exacerbated the problem.

My thesis is it's easy to react and fight fire with fire. It's hard to be strong and turn the other cheek. And I understand that sometimes people can be so overcome with emotion that they can't help themselves.

I don't advocate full on pacifism. I believe in many situations, where violence is the only resolution left, such as WW2, violence is necessary to resolve a conflict.

I'm interested to know how revolutionaries who believe in violence to overthrow the ruling class justify their position.


All violence does is turn people off to your ideas.

[Bud Struggle]

All violence does is turn people off to your ideas.

You need to be back in Chit Chat. :)

[STJ]

haahha Yes i do.:)

[Oneironaut]

My point is that when it comes to human affairs EVERYTHING is logical. I live on a lake in Florida and I have my coffee in the morning out on the back porch and watch all these (dumb?) animals--lots of birds, but and occasional turkey or fox or rabbit--and they all know their place in their economic system. All are in harmony with what they are and where they belong.

And then you look at humans--a thousand times smarter in a thousand different ways--and we don't have a clue how to live with one another. Communism, Capitalism, Objectivism, etc. All trying to mimic what the rest of nature does without even a thought.

I hope you don't mean to say everything when it comes to human affairs has been reasoned correctly (I don't think that's what you are saying but just to clarify). The whole issue with the nature argument or social darwinism is that it simply is not applicable to human society. It's premise of natural scarcity, the same premise of capitalism, has exceedingly been erased through the course of history as we now potentially have the means to produce adequately for every individual in the entire world. Granted, this will mean a very small minority won't be able to have multiple houses, cars, planes... you get my point.

Humans can't just get with one another as long as there exists conflicting interests. Any endeavor to do so is futile. As long as there exists classes of opposing interest and hence an apparatus for one class to dominate (the state) , we are going to continue down the path that we have been on. I don't think Communism, Capitalism, Objectivism have ever even tried to mimic what the rest of nature does (I guess you could argue Hitler tried). What Marx (unlike capitalist theorists) acknowledged is the biotic relationship between human and nature. It's not correct to say that he took no thought of the matter.

[RGacky3]

I live on a lake in Florida and I have my coffee in the morning out on the back porch and watch all these (dumb?) animals--lots of birds, but and occasional turkey or fox or rabbit--and they all know their place in their economic system. All are in harmony with what they are and where they belong.

And then you look at humans--a thousand times smarter in a thousand different ways--and we don't have a clue how to live with one another. Communism, Capitalism, Objectivism, etc. All trying to mimic what the rest of nature does without even a thought.

Well you clearly don't believe that, that we should base our society on the animal kingdom, thats not logical (by that I mean consistant with your other beliefs). I think your not getting my point, my simple point is, to workers, don't ask, take.

[Bud Struggle]

I hope you don't mean to say everything when it comes to human affairs has been reasoned correctly (I don't think that's what you are saying but just to clarify). .

And


Well you clearly don't believe that, that we should base our society on the animal kingdom, thats not logical (by that I mean consistant with your other beliefs). I think your not getting my point, my simple point is, to workers, don't ask, take.

No. I was just whistfully musing. I didn't really mean anything by it.

[synthesis]

My problem is that without a God--there is no standard of ethics. Without a God each man's will is soverign in the world.

But isn't that how religion works in practice? Haven't people always picked and chose the aspects of religious morality that suit their conditions? I notice, for example, that you're down with that "love thy neighbor" stuff, but you seem to ignore the whole "God will fucking smite your ass" thing from further back.


Yea, but one could argue with that too. Animals like wolves and tigers have their territories that provide them with food. They drive off the weaker wolves and tigers that invade their areas. Why can't I drive off weaker people that want to take over my land or posession? Maybe that's logical?

It is logical for you, and again this is capitalism in practice. That's why we need violent revolution :)

(P.S. I'm not picking on you. I think you sympathize with us to a degree, but at the same time, it's not that often we get an actual factory owner who is willing to engage our ideas, so it's just too tempting to use you as an example when making a point.)

[Bud Struggle]

But isn't that how religion works in practice? Haven't people always picked and chose the aspects of religious morality that suit their conditions? I notice, for example, that you're down with that "love thy neighbor" stuff, but you seem to ignore the whole "God will fucking smite your ass" thing from further back. The entire picking in choosing thing is in EVERY philosophy and way of thinking. that's why there are so many flavors of Comminists--some choose this a bit more than that and some choose that a bit more than this. In the end though, you can usually put together a workable way of doing things if you take the time and effort to try and see what's behind the religion and philosophy in the first place.




It is logical for you, and again this is capitalism in practice. That's why we need violent revolution :) Actually, it's NOT more logical to me. (I was just giving an instance.) No, I believe everyone should live in friendship and peace. Wars really don't make much sense at all.


(P.S. I'm not picking on you. I think you sympathize with us to a degree, but at the same time, it's not that often we get an actual factory owner who is willing to engage our ideas, so it's just too tempting to use you as an example when making a point.)

Alas, mock me all youu want! :D :D :D

[Spooky]

Well, I do think you need to make a change there (easier said than done.) Your system works badly for everyone concerned--if the rich let loose some of their money and gave people a better standard of living there would be a better chance Brazil would grow and prosper--for everyone's sake.

Again I see your point--but there's not much chance of a Revolution either.


Good post, thanks.

No problem! I am American, but I would dare say that our system is no better than Brazil... just more refined and subtle, when it comes to class dictatorship.

I disagree with the statement that if Brazil loosened up and rerouted some money that Brazil would prosper for everyone's sake. That sounds much like Rawslian argument where the new arrangement is justified because it is less horrible than the previous.

Why do you see no chance for revolution? From the two posts that we've been talking to each other with, it seems that you are very squeamish to give thought to the possibility of revolution. You said that you have problems with leader in history who used socialist agendas to secure their own totalitarian rule. And, that there is no possibility for revolution (and I assuming this reasoning is something like "our lesson from revolution has been learned: it always goes to massacre and dictatorships".) But in reasoning like this you fail to recognize that they were all failures, and did not reach their goal. In addition, it completely ignores the redemptive moment in all of those revolutions, where each was fully infused by the utopic yearning of its people, collectivized energy to change things once and for all. And, then, its largest underlying premise is that any significant change can actually take place incrementally.

I'm not trying to chew your head off, :lol:, you seen like an intelligent guy. I just don't see the basis for your belief for the impossibility of revolution. Like Slavoj Zizek has said, the more revolutionary failures that the people have, the more they fail and become downtrodden, the stronger they get, because their failures and their utopic yearning will result in the final victorious battle like dreams waiting to be manifest.

[Bud Struggle]

No problem! I am American, but I would dare say that our system is no better than Brazil... just more refined and subtle, when it comes to class dictatorship. Well class dictatorshop is a problem if the Bourgeoise is a "closed shop" like it is in Brazil. But in the US, with a little effort and luck one could ease oneself into making as much money as one needs. I see a big difference between the countries.


I disagree with the statement that if Brazil loosened up and rerouted some money that Brazil would prosper for everyone's sake. That sounds much like Rawslian argument where the new arrangement is justified because it is less horrible than the previous. As long as the lower classes have a decent standard of living, I don't see much chance of them upsetting the apple cart and voting outside of the Democrat/Republican ranks--let alone revolting.


Why do you see no chance for revolution? From the two posts that we've been talking to each other with, it seems that you are very squeamish to give thought to the possibility of revolution. I see Americans (at least) of all calasses as generally happy with their lot in life--some complaining, to be sure, but isthere any guarentee that thing will get better under Communism? It's hard to say it would when places like the Soviet Union (which wasn't Communism, but a good attempt at Communism) failed so badly.


You said that you have problems with leader in history who used socialist agendas to secure their own totalitarian rule. And, that there is no possibility for revolution (and I assuming this reasoning is something like "our lesson from revolution has been learned: it always goes to massacre and dictatorships".) But in reasoning like this you fail to recognize that they were all failures, and did not reach their goal. You know, I just don't know what a revolution would bring. It could bring, peace on earth and goodness and plenty, but on the other hand it could bring hell. Why gamble? People come aling and spoil things like revolutions quite easily. Where is the nextStalin learking for us to give him a chance--the next Hitler. I think people are rather content withthe statusquo than having to deal with another sociopath "Great Leader."


In addition, it completely ignores the redemptive moment in all of those revolutions, where each was fully infused by the utopic yearning of its people, collectivized energy to change things once and for all. And, then, its largest underlying premise is that any significant change can actually take place incrementally. Yea all the redemptive stuff comesright before the purges.


I'm not trying to chew your head off, :lol:, you seen like an intelligent guy. I just don't see the basis for your belief for the impossibility of revolution. Like Slavoj Zizek has said, the more revolutionary failures that the people have, the more they fail and become downtrodden, the stronger they get, because their failures and their utopic yearning will result in the final victorious battle like dreams waiting to be manifest. You seem to be a bit of a romantic! :D

[synthesis]

The entire picking in choosing thing is in EVERY philosophy and way of thinking. that's why there are so many flavors of Comminists--some choose this a bit more than that and some choose that a bit more than this.That's a little evasive, don't you think? Not every way of thinking purports to be the inerrant Word of God, and therefore very few philosophies fit your criterion of providing an ethical system that isn't based on the whims of man.

But that's just the problem - there's never been a "way of thinking" that didn't come from humans.


In the end though, you can usually put together a workable way of doing things if you take the time and effort to try and see what's behind the religion and philosophy in the first place.
My problem is that without a God--there is no standard of ethics. Without a God each man's will is soverign in the world.;)

People's "wills" have always been as sovereign as their circumstances allow them to be.

[RGacky3]

Well class dictatorshop is a problem if the Bourgeoise is a "closed shop" like it is in Brazil. But in the US, with a little effort and luck one could ease oneself into making as much money as one needs. I see a big difference between the countries.


Slight social mobility is'nt a justificatio for tyranny. Yeah there is a difference, Brazil has a more functioning democracy.


As long as the lower classes have a decent standard of living, I don't see much chance of them upsetting the apple cart and voting outside of the Democrat/Republican ranks--let alone revolting.

They don't, I don't see them voting outside Democrat/Republican ranks, however thats because Americas democratic system is a fruad. I do see them revolting somewhate when things get bad, and the propeganda does'nt work anymore.


I see Americans (at least) of all calasses as generally happy with their lot in life--some complaining, to be sure, but isthere any guarentee that thing will get better under Communism? It's hard to say it would when places like the Soviet Union (which wasn't Communism, but a good attempt at Communism) failed so badly.

Generally happy with their lot in life? Whats this based on? You asked them? Also, there is a guanrantee life will get better under actual communism, thinking it out logically, of caorse there is, its always better for people when they have more control over their life and enviroment.


but on the other hand it could bring hell. Why gamble? People come aling and spoil things like revolutions quite easily. Where is the nextStalin learking for us to give him a chance--the next Hitler. I think people are rather content withthe statusquo than having to deal with another sociopath "Great Leader."

That depends on the type of revolution, thats not an argument against revolution. Thats like saying "We should'nt do medical research, because in the past, bad inventions have been made, like the atomic bomb."


No, I believe everyone should live in friendship and peace. Wars really don't make much sense at all.

Thats easy to say when you have money, I guarantee you every king and lord in history wanted to live in friendship and peace with their peasents (as long as they were still the lord and king).