Best Arguments for Revolution

[Jimmie Higgins]

It seems like many people I meet who are activists or even left-leaning liberals can be sympathetic to socialism and agree with me politically, but will twist themselves into all kinds of political pretzels to avoid concluding that a full revolution (even if it were relatively nonviolent) is necessary.

Clearly this is the effect of ruling class influence on ideas in general society and on individual workers. People don't believe that revolutionary change is possible or would be beneficial because a lot of time and energy is put into the idea that capitalist rule is the best we can expect.

So what arguments have comrades here found most convincing to liberals or social-democrats that the state can't be slowly changed or reformed or modified in a way that will either make "good capitalism" or "reform capitalism into socialism"?

[Hoxhaist]

Point out that Obama for all his talk of change failed to deliver because of the bickering politically entrenched interests of Wall Street and the elements that quickly tagged onto Obama's administration and neutered the Administration so real new policies couldnt be enacted or fresh people brought in (only recycled Clinton people)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Point out that Obama for all his talk of change failed to deliver because of the bickering politically entrenched interests of Wall Street and the elements that quickly tagged onto Obama's administration and neutered the Administration so real new policies couldnt be enacted or fresh people brought in (only recycled Clinton people)

Yeah. I was talking with someone recently and using the fact that Bush neolibs and Obama neolibs have both turned against the Milton Friedman ideology that they built their careers on shows how little difference there is between the two parties and how their actions are based more on the needs of capital and business than on their stated ideas or political differences.

The Iraq war would also be an example of how the needs of imperilaism are represented in anyone from the official politics of the US.

[Spooky]

Slavoj Zizek wrote an entire book on this issue "In Defense of Lost Causes" printed by Verso books in which he said that the Left basically needs to reassume its revolutionary history and reclaim it as their own. His book is entirely confusing, but well worth a read.

In it he shows how revolutionary emancipatory politics is often the "excluded third" option of politics that is completely foreclosed as a viable option by people, because a false dichotomy between liberal Democracy and totalitarianism is established, which appears to be the only two options.

Also, he echoes the words of Robespierre, that the non-revolutionary left wants a "revolution without a revolution" namely that Leftists desire a new order but their options and tactics actually fall short of producing those things, and shy away from the fact that revolution is necessary.

Also there are the works of Rosa Luxemburg, especially "Reform or Revolution" that sets out a classic appeal that incrementalism will always be class dictatorship. Only read parts of it, though.

[Hoxhaist]

the lesson from leftist history that needs to be learned is collaborating with the enemies of revolution for too long or abandoning a revolution as a goal has always spelled doom for the movement for real progress in human society

[Hoxhaist]

Yeah. I was talking with someone recently and using the fact that Bush neolibs and Obama neolibs have both turned against the Milton Friedman ideology that they built their careers on shows how little difference there is between the two parties and how their actions are based more on the needs of capital and business than on their stated ideas or political differences.
As soon as I heard that Rahm Emanuel was going to be WH Chief of Staff, I knew that real change in the US-Israel relationship was dead. This guy was in the IDF and his father was a terrorist in the 1948 war with the Stern gang

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've read Luxemburg and it's always amazing when I read where Marxists critique social democrats or other groups and it's like they are having the same arguments that we have today.

The German Social Democrats theory of capitalism's crises being solved = "end of history" or the end of ideology that we heard from both liberals and conservatives in the 80s and 90s.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As soon as I heard that Rahm Emanuel was going to be WH Chief of Staff, I knew that real change in the US-Israel relationship was dead. This guy was in the IDF and his father was a terrorist in the 1948 war with the Stern gang

Well Obama (who I heard was once more sympathetic to the palistinians - but I heard that 2nd hand) threw any possibility of a different position on Israel under the bus as soon as the thought of running for President entered his head. He made it clear before Emanuel's appointment that he was all for US imperialsim and its bulldog.

[kbjami]

I'm too use to living in a Capitalist country that even though i don't believe in most of it, I still believe in a some what competitive drive.

[Black Sheep]

So what arguments have comrades here found most convincing to liberals or social-democrats that the state can't be slowly changed or reformed or modified in a way that will either make "good capitalism" or "reform capitalism into socialism"?
Simply describe to them how capitalism functions.The core is the exploitation of human labor, that's it.In whatever way you twist and turn, whatever you reform, if you don't change that, there will always be an economic gap, rich and poor, class division, privatization waves, layoffs, etc.

IF on the other hand, you do change that, then you no longer have capitalism.Pay back the workers their full amount of labor worth, and capitalism is done for.

In whatever way you decide to do this, it is called a revolution, because you change the economic core of today's society, and all the apparatus based on that will collapse.

Describe this, also have a look in the labor theory of value a bit to back your arguments up, and go for it.