The last revolution

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Just wondering if you guys believed in the final clash between the proletariat and bourgeoise.I definately do.Also sorry if I put this in the wrong category I couldn't witch to choose.

[MikeSC]

I wouldn't put it as a case of belief. It's something to struggle for, certainly. I'm kind of cynical- capitalism can't last forever, but I don't see that it's a certain thing that socialism will replace it. With globalisation, the mass of the proletariat, the children and sweatshop workers and bond slaves etc. are out of sight and out of the minds of people in the first world. The gap left has pushed first-world working classes into the middle classes, and the underclasses. Our proletariat is a lot weaker than we used to be.

We'll see crises of capitalism as the third world develops (that's if the first world doesn't decide to save the world from environmental disaster by restricting or sanctioning the third world. Some Guardianista "greens" make me sick to my stomach- describing third world people who have children as "breeders" and wishing to restrict them and so on...) etc. But there's no saying what will replace it, or whether any kind of system will at all.

[ZeroNowhere]

I do not believe in decadent theories.

Edit: Though you didn't make it completely clear what you were talking about, actually.

[Bud Struggle]

I voted "other."

I think as long as there are people things will be in flux. There may be a Communist revolution in the future--but there's sure to be a Capitalist one that follows. Maybe something else will follow. Some will be successful and some won't. I don't think there will be a political or economic "endgame" after which everything will remain static.

And there are are always going to be wildcard people that will hijack a revolution or the good intentions of millions or billions--like a Stalin or Hitler or Napoleon or Caesar.

Economic and political and social turmoil will continue until the Sun novas.

All that being said, I wish you Communists were right.

[RGacky3]

There may be a Communist revolution in the future--but there's sure to be a Capitalist one that follows.

If theres a genuine Communist revolutoin (meaning libertarian socialst one) its very very unlikely that a Capitalist one will follow. The destruction of the USSR was'nt a Capitalist revolution, it was an anti-state one, and because the state controlled the economy, Capitalism came back as people quickly took over, but there was no Capitalist revolution.


And there are are always going to be wildcard people that will hijack a revolution or the good intentions of millions or billions--like a Stalin or Hitler or Napoleon or Caesar.


Not if the revolution does'nt allow that opportunity.


Just wondering if you guys believed in the final clash between the proletariat and bourgeoise.

Its sounds like the appocolipse. Theres no ultimate revolution or whatever, its alwasy going to be those with power trying to defend it, and those without (hopefully) trying to dsimantle it. I just hope for as many victories of the latter as posible.

[Dust Bunnies]

I believe that there will be a point where the world will sit as one Communist Earth and prosper. But, this final revolution will not be one big anime style battle. It will go on for a while, even a decade or two. It will start with your run of the mill Capitalist wars and somewhere the proletariat will rise up, and slowly, a domino effect will occur. This could take centuries, but if we can successfully forge a Communist society then there would be no need for Capitalist revolutions.

[Ele'ill]

I believe that the chosen few will turn into their power animals are wreck havoc on the bourgeoise. Like that comic/graphic novel I had as a kid. Where the kids could turn into animals and fight against ships carrying oil and stuff. Anyone know the name of that comic book?

[Dejavu]

I am unclear what you mean by revolution and what it entails.

[Robert]

Not if the revolution does'nt allow that opportunity.

What's the mechanism [to stop a Napoleon from hijcking the revolution]?

You can't just wish away bad things, Gack. You'd better get used to the idea of cops, even if (especially if?) the revolution really does materialize.

[trivas7]

Just wondering if you guys believed in the final clash between the proletariat and bourgeoise.
No, but I do predict there'll soon be massive labor unrest in China. :D

[Jimmie Higgins]

No, but I do predict there'll soon be massive labor unrest in China. :D
I think that's already begun in some factory towns. How is that not the same clash? Because the Chinese ruling class calls itself "Socialist"? I think they, the rulers, may think that will help them, but it won't stop workers from coming into conflict with those who control the means of production.

[swirling_vortex]

I don't believe in the traditional ideology of sudden revolution. History has shown us that these one-man leaders like Pol-Pot and Kim Jong who fooled the public into buying their ideas ended up into either degenerated worker states, dictatorships, or both.

In order to get to communism, you need to get socialism. In order to get socialism, you need a strong working class foundation in the government. It has to be a gradual change so other socialists in the years ahead can maneuver around the bumps and cracks during the transitional period. If we try to push things too rapidly, we're a) going to get a backlash and b) end up with something worse. Like any good strategy, patience is the key to success.

[GracchusBabeuf]

In order to get to communism, you need to get socialism. In order to get socialism, you need a strong working class foundation in the government. Sounds contradictory. The government exists to protect the haves against the have nots. There is no way any government can have a working class foundation.


It has to be a gradual change so other socialists in the years ahead can maneuver around the bumps and cracks during the transitional period. This is known as reformism and has been tried for more than one and a half century. Nearly all of the reformist social democrats of the early and middle 20th century have given up any pretense of wanting any change in the relations of means of production. Instead they have become full blown bourgeoisie. Not to mention the so-called Communist Parties of various countries who have almost completely given up on a social revolution, but are instead content with continuing the capitalist system, albeit with certain Keynesian or pseudo-socialist reforms.


If we try to push things too rapidly, we're a) going to get a backlash and b) end up with something worse. Like any good strategy, patience is the key to success.On the other hand, the patience strategy has not worked for over a century. Why should it work all of a sudden? Working class revolutions have succeeded albeit partially in the early 20th century. No reason why similar revolutions should not be tried again.

Also to reply to the OP, it time the oppressed classes realize there is already a war being waged against them by the bourgeoisie. But on the whole, we cannot predict any final clash or victory of the proletariat as such because we cannot predict the future.

[MikeSC]

Sounds contradictory. The government exists to protect the haves against the have nots. There is no way any government can have a working class foundation.

Definately- what's needed as a first step, I think, would be strong Unions that aren't constrained by affiliation with any political party. A Labour trade union base without a parliamentary Labour Party to push them to the right.

[Green Dragon]

And there are are always going to be wildcard people that will hijack a revolution or the good intentions of millions or billions--like a Stalin or Hitler or Napoleon or Caesar.


Such a comment suggests that the Interational Socialists, The National Socialists, the Bonapartists or the "Caesarists" all had good intentions. All four in fact sought to destroy the historical greatness of their respective countries and replace it with something else.
Contemporary socialists ought to keep this in mind when they dreamily speak of replacing the modern world with something else (with "appropriate" safeguards, of course).

[teenagebricks]

Revolution is such a vague term in this case. I don't believe that there will be some epic battle between the forces of good and evil where only one can win, rather that the revolution will be ongoing, and instead of establishing a proletariat utopia where we all live happily ever after, the need to keep the bourgeois at bay will always be there.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=socialist;1409408]
This is known as reformism and has been tried for more than one and a half century. Nearly all of the reformist social democrats of the early and middle 20th century have given up any pretense of wanting any change in the relations of means of production. Instead they have become full blown bourgeoisie. Not to mention the so-called Communist Parties of various countries who have almost completely given up on a social revolution, but are instead content with continuing the capitalist system, albeit with certain Keynesian or pseudo-socialist reforms.


Perhaps such socialists have come to accept the totalitaran nature of socialism logically applied.



On the other hand, the patience strategy has not worked for over a century. Why should it work all of a sudden? Working class revolutions have succeeded albeit partially in the early 20th century. No reason why similar revolutions should not be tried again.


What success? Where? Its 2009, not 1909.

[Killfacer]

I don't beleive in some semi religious day of judgement when the workers will rise up and wrestle power from their evil overlords.

The world is always in flux, i doubt there will be one big revolution. There maybe revolutions and who knows, maybe the world will eventually be socialist, but the idea that all this is going to happen in one epic "last revolution" is a bit laughable.

[Green Dragon]

I don't beleive in some semi religious day of judgement when the workers will rise up and wrestle power from their evil overlords.

The world is always in flux, i doubt there will be one big revolution. There maybe revolutions and who knows, maybe the world will eventually be socialist, but the idea that all this is going to happen in one epic "last revolution" is a bit laughable.


But if there is not, then the socialist will have to reconcile himself with the existence of capitalist communities alongside those of socialist ones (at least for a while).
And we know that socialists have been unable to draw up successful "arguments" in defense of such an arrangement.

It is indeed laughable to expect a sudden worldwide "last revolution."

No matter how one looks at it, the road to socialism always seems to be a dead end.

[Bud Struggle]

Such a comment suggests that the Interational Socialists, The National Socialists, the Bonapartists or the "Caesarists" all had good intentions. All four in fact sought to destroy the historical greatness of their respective countries and replace it with something else.
Contemporary socialists ought to keep this in mind when they dreamily speak of replacing the modern world with something else (with "appropriate" safeguards, of course).

The problem comes full circle when you look at how just about all (if not all) Communist Revolutions unfolded. These revolutions all have to-death-do-us-part Glorious Leaders that had to "control" the Revolution till the day they died--because it seems, the people could not be trusted.

It's a staple of every Communist movement starting with Lenin.

For that matter--it might be said that Lenin was the Great Betrayer of Marxism. He had it in his power to create a free Socialist (if not Communist) society but he "invented" modern Totalitarianism instead. (Lampooned perfectly in 1984. Now it wasn't helped that he was followed by a meglomaniac opportunist like Stalin. But you could make a case that Marxism has been forever corrupted by Lenin.

[Vendetta]

I don't think there will be any such thing as 'the last revolution.' The world's just too big for a huge 'good vs evil' (as it is ;)) fight.

[Bud Struggle]

But if there is not, then the socialist will have to reconcile himself with the existence of capitalist communities alongside those of socialist ones (at least for a while).


The bulk of the 20th century was an attempt by Socialist to do just that--but the matter resolved itself in the late 1980s.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Perhaps such socialists have come to accept the totalitaran nature of socialism logically applied. Wait, if they are totalitarians and they want capitalism to continue, there must be no conflict between totalitarianism and capitalism.;)

[trivas7]

For that matter--it might be said that Lenin was the Great Betrayer of Marxism. He had it in his power to create a free Socialist (if not Communist) society but he "invented" modern Totalitarianism instead. (Lampooned perfectly in 1984. Now it wasn't helped that he was followed by a meglomaniac opportunist like Stalin. But you could make a case that Marxism has been forever corrupted by Lenin.
This is historically shortsighted of you, Tom. Lenin was no totalitarian. He used what methods were available to him to prop up an ailing regime amidst a civil war and attack by 27 different foreign armies. Lenin was indeed most unhappy w/ Russia's prospects for the future at the end of his life but he neither intended nor set up a totalitarian bureaucracy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Such a comment suggests that the Interational Socialists, The National Socialists, the Bonapartists or the "Caesarists" all had good intentions. All four in fact sought to destroy the historical greatness of their respective countries and replace it with something else.
Contemporary socialists ought to keep this in mind when they dreamily speak of replacing the modern world with something else (with "appropriate" safeguards, of course).

Maybe good intentions in their mind, but they also had different intentions. The NAZI's intention was to destroy rebellions by workers and get rid of all other political groups in order to "restore order". The NAZIs wanted to do this and did it. The Bonapartists wanted the end the messy squabbling of the republicans and the rebellion of the sans-culottes that was threatening the privilages of the rich.

The Internationals socialists - I guess you mean the bols - had no intention of a one party state where the power of burocrats trumped worker's power. The revolution failed as have many such as the French Revolution as well as the majority of slave and pesant rebellions.

So does the chance of failure mean that it shouldn't be tried - that people shouldn't struggle for a better life? Should we still be worshiping a King and aristorcracy as our god-appointed betters? Should we believe that the planets and sun revolve around the earth because if we don't the pope will imprison us? Should Lincoln not have fought the Southern Confederacy just because eventually reconstruction would fail and lead to Jim Crow? Should you not date anyone because the relationship may end badly - they may even hurt you physically or even kill you?

No, the absense of struggle is death. The French Revolutionaries didn't know if they would win and couldn't have forseen Napolean, but they knew that the continuation of the status quo was more deaths by the King, more wars for aristocrats, more starvation for the Queen's fabulous gowns.

[ZeroNowhere]

In order to get to communism, you need to get socialism.
In order to get communism, you need to get... Communism? Very enlightening.


Such a comment suggests that the Interational Socialists, The National Socialists, the Bonapartists or the "Caesarists" all had good intentions. All four in fact sought to destroy the historical greatness of their respective countries and replace it with something else.
Historical greatness...?
I'll assume you're referring to WWI and Bismarck?
Then again, I'm not entirely sure how one 'destroys historical greatness', and why this greatness is important in the first place.


The world is always in flux, i doubt there will be one big revolution. There maybe revolutions and who knows, maybe the world will eventually be socialist, but the idea that all this is going to happen in one epic "last revolution" is a bit laughable.
Well, to be fair, Manilla Road do exist, and are at least as epic as the last revolution.

[RGacky3]

Lenin was indeed most unhappy w/ Russia's prospects for the future at the end of his life but he neither intended nor set up a totalitarian bureaucracy.

Yes he did, he may of not been a tyrant at heart, but he thought that the only way to revolution was if he and his party had all the control and could shape what happend, THAT is totalitarianism.


He had it in his power to create a free Socialist (if not Communist) society but he "invented" modern Totalitarianism instead. (Lampooned perfectly in 1984. Now it wasn't helped that he was followed by a meglomaniac opportunist like Stalin. But you could make a case that Marxism has been forever corrupted by Lenin.

In a genuine revolution no one should have that power in the first place. In the Spanish revolution there was no one man or group of men that had the power to shape society. It was truely a peoples revolution in all the senses of the word.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes he did, he may of not been a tyrant at heart, but he thought that the only way to revolution was if he and his party had all the control and could shape what happend, THAT is totalitarianism. He really didn't trust the Proletariat or Marxim any more than the Tsar. If Lenin did, he would not have concentrated authority into the Party and let the people and the Soviets actually rule. And the same could be same could be said for Castro and Kim and Ho and Mao and Chavez and EVERY OTHER Socialist or neo-Communist leader of the 20/21st Centuries. Without exception.

And the interesting thing is that in Countries like Russia and China (And maybe the other countries, too) they all created a Bourgeois class where there once was none. The Communist Party became the Bourgeoise that took over all the businesses without a hitch after the Velvet Revolution. The Communist Party is the driving force in the Capitalization of China today. It seems just the way things work.




In a genuine revolution no one should have that power in the first place. In the Spanish revolution there was no one man or group of men that had the power to shape society. It was truely a peoples revolution in all the senses of the word.

I have to say, Gack, if I could KNOW your Revolution would be the one that would happen--I'd be all for it. But, the odds (since Lenin) seem to be greatly against you. As bad as things in the USA sometimes are I'd rather live here than under a Glorious Leader for life like Castro or Stalin or any of those guys. The leaders may all be alike here, but at least they do charge around.

How are you going to achieve Communism AND Freedom in your Revolution?

[RGacky3]

And the same could be same could be said for Castro and Kim and Ho and Mao and Chavez and EVERY OTHER Socialist or neo-Communist leader of the 20/21st Centuries. Without exception.

Nope, shall we go over the examples once again?


And the interesting thing is that in Countries like Russia and China (And maybe the other countries, too) they all created a Bourgeois class where there once was none. The Communist Party became the Bourgeoise that took over all the businesses without a hitch after the Velvet Revolution. The Communist Party is the driving force in the Capitalization of China today. It seems just the way things work.


Thats because all those revolutions followed the Leninist model, which is just one model and its the wrong contradictory model.


I have to say, Gack, if I could KNOW your Revolution would be the one that would happen--I'd be all for it. But, the odds (since Lenin) seem to be greatly against you. As bad as things in the USA sometimes are I'd rather live here than under a Glorious Leader for life like Castro or Stalin or any of those guys. The leaders may all be alike here, but at least they do charge around.


Leninism is over and dead, that socialism ultimately died with the USSR, or at least started its death.

Since the begining of the century MY socialism has actually become a lot more popular, worker direct action is comming back, more autonomous communities, people taking things in to their own hands, Everything from African shack dwellers to the Zapatistas, to the Argentinian worker takeovers, to the Oaxacan takeover of the city (for a while). Even elected officials, such as Evo Morales or Hugo Chavez are essencially realizing that my type of socialism has more support, they are giving local communal governments a lot more power, ther are giving collective workplaces and farms (not soviet style state farms, but actual peasent run farms) a lot of support.

Communism is impossible without freedom, its like having democracy without freedom of speach, its really an oxymoron.

My revolution is the type of revolution that is happening in workplaces, farms, factories, communities all over the world. Not one led by any glorious leader trying to take state power.

[redarmyfaction38]

Just wondering if you guys believed in the final clash between the proletariat and bourgeoise.I definately do.Also sorry if I put this in the wrong category I couldn't witch to choose.

there can never be a final revolution, after socialism comes communism after communism comes anarchy, each requires some form of revolution.
what could possibly come after anarchy you may ask, we'll find out in the process of the transition from communism to anarchism and the anarchists will "shoot them like pigeons" too.

[Bud Struggle]

there can never be a final revolution, after socialism comes communism after communism comes anarchy, each requires some form of revolution.
what could possibly come after anarchy you may ask, we'll find out in the process of the transition from communism to anarchism and the anarchists will "shoot them like pigeons" too.

And after Anarchism--there will be FEUDALISM again. :cool::laugh:

FYI: Robert the Great will be Emperor, I will be Shogun. ;)

[griffjam]

Rather than asking whether the conditions are ripe for revolution, we accept that we may never know, so this is as good a time as any to find out.

[TC]

Just wondering if you guys believed in the final clash between the proletariat and bourgeoise.

When your socialism, although self-defined as marxist, relies on an essentially religious commitment, then it wont inform your political analysis scientifically and you'll be able to be argued out of it just like with any other normative political position. You rob marxism of its distinctiveness with deterministic beliefs.

[Bud Struggle]

When your socialism, although self-defined as marxist, relies on an essentially religious commitment, then it wont inform your political analysis scientifically and you'll be able to be argued out of it just like with any other normative political position. You rob marxism of its distinctiveness with deterministic beliefs.

1. Marxism is a religion. (Communism in general, not so much.)

2. Marxism is as distinctive as Capitalism or Feudalism or any other economic "ism." Actually maybe not even as quite. It unlike the others hasn't shown itself to be workable on any long term basis in the real world.

But then, back to 1.

:)

[TC]

1. Marxism is a religion. (Communism in general, not so much.)

2. Marxism is as distinctive as Capitalism or Feudalism or any other economic "ism." Actually maybe not even as quite. It unlike the others hasn't shown itself to be workable on any long term basis in the real world.

But then, back to 1.

:)

Its easy to think that because 1. you're an idiot 2. people like che-theliberator represent themselves, falsely, as marxists, and in doing, falsely represent marxism, when they are in fact supporting a utopian socialism that they've labled "marxism" because they share the same intuitive impulses about politics and society as marxists but unlike marxists lack thesocial scientific method behind it. That is in fact probably true of most of the forum. 3. because you're an idiot you both can't tell the difference and don't care to.

[Bud Struggle]

Its easy to think that because 1. you're an idiot 2. people like che-theliberator represent themselves, falsely, as marxists, and in doing, falsely represent marxism, when they are in fact supporting a utopian socialism that they've labled "marxism" because they share the same intuitive impulses about politics and society as marxists but unlike marxists lack thesocial scientific method behind it. That is in fact probably true of most of the forum. 3. because you're an idiot you both can't tell the difference and don't care to.

1. I never said anything to the contrary.

2. Marxism is nothing more or less than what it's advocates portray it to be. 99.999% of the people of the world will Never read Das Kapital--but a good number will meet a Communist and those Communist will sometimes have a moment to explain their cause. A dose of CHEtheLEBERATOR is a good example of what they will get. :D

3. I do care to see the differences! I rather enjoy seeing the differences between the theory and the practice of Marxism. It reminds me of similar difference between the Thomistic theology and the daily practice of believers in the Medieval Roman Catholic Church. (The religious metaphor is not by accident.:) )

[Robert]

Robert the Great will be Emperor, I will be Shogun.

Arigatou gozaimasu, TomK-San.

I do look smashing in royal purple and would be delighted to play (and I do mean play) Go Daigo to your Takauji.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Revolution never ends. It is permanent.