We need to center

[Code]

I've been thinking about revolution and how one could be possible in modern, oppressive, 1st world countries and I can really only see it happening if we're all in one place. I mean if there's just a few of us here and a few of us there then the ignorant majority washes over! Therefor I really think that we should deside on ONE region to make our own and to liberate and then spread. From what I've read, a method simaliar to this one work in the mid stages of the Cuban revolution and I think if everyone (or at least most of us) on this forum, and the orginizations seeking to end oppression met somewhere that we could expand from then we could make our own, better, country!!

[Plagueround]

This isn't really DIY type stuff. Moved.

[GuerrillaBrad]

The necessity of centralizing would be negated if we do a decent job of educating the masses. A revolution would be better served if we could convince the majority of the people to stop participating in the idea of the state as it stands. The education route would provide for less violence in the act of revolution, and an easier transition. Not to mention the moral implications of forcing revolution upon a populace that doesn't want it.

[Pogue]

The necessity of centralizing would be negated if we do a decent job of educating the masses. A revolution would be better served if we could convince the majority of the people to stop participating in the idea of the state as it stands. The education route would provide for less violence in the act of revolution, and an easier transition. Not to mention the moral implications of forcing revolution upon a populace that doesn't want it.

Its impossible to force a revolution upon people who don't want it.

[Led Zeppelin]

This is a weird thread, it doesn't really belong in Theory either.

I guess the only forum fit for it is Learning, since this person needs to do a lot of it...

[Code]

since this person needs to do a lot of it...

There's no need to be a dick about it!! I really think it would make it alot easier!

I mean if I'm wrong then expain it!

[Code]

Its impossible to force a revolution upon people who don't want it.

That's exactly why I we should centralize!

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Perhaps it would be easier to educate people if there were hundreds of communists in one town as opposed to a dozen, but the idea that we'll all move off to some small state and overthrow the government is..well..stupid.

[Pogue]

This could actually open up the valid question of: How do we, as revolutionaries, with limited numbers, spread our ideas and grow as a movement?

Revolutionary unions in my opinion, but then we need a certain amount of people to get those off the ground!

[Code]

Perhaps it would be easier to educate people if there were hundreds of communists in one town as opposed to a dozen, but the idea that we'll all move off to some small state and overthrow the government is..well..stupid.

That's exactly what I'm saying!
I never said we'd just go somewhere and overthrow local government!
I just think we'd be WAY stronger as a movement if we were together instead of so apart.

[Pogue]

That's exactly what I'm saying!
I never said we'd just go somewhere and overthrow local government!
I just think we'd be WAY stronger as a movement if we were together instead of so apart.

I think this ignores the nature of how a revolution'd happen.

We need to build up working class ideas internationally through agitation and participation in struggles to give them a revolutionary socialist nature. We can't do this by all moving to one town and advancing as a big red wave from this starting point. Although i must admit it'd be fun to share a town full of commies, as long as i didnt have to share a room with holden caulfield cos he's a thief

[Post-Something]

Code, your idea won't work because of one very important fact that Marxists often miss out:

The ruling classes not only oppress other classes, they also convince them that they are justified in doing so. This false sense of justification is called Hegemony. To effectively challenge the ruling class, you would have to rally some sort of Counter-Hegemony, ie take control of media outlets and so on. It's a gradual process.

A wave of raving communists wouldn't really manage to confront the ruling class, just cause havoc until the army came and nuetralised them. This is because the state works on much more complex terms than simply violence and terror. You would first have to convince the masses that there is truly an alternative to capitalism.

[Code]

Thank you for explianing it!
But I still think we should atleast FOCUS on one area, right?

[Post-Something]

Hmm, well what areas would you be proposing?

Maybe we should all focus on our own areas? Because that way, we would actually know the interests of the people that inhabit the area, and the everyday troubles that they have to face, and thus be able to connect with them more easily? It would certainly be pretentious for me to travel all the way over to France and preach what they should do over there, when I may not actually understand the specifics of their situation.

[Code]

I guess that makes sence. Thanks

[Code]

I guess that makes sence. Thanks
It just seems kinda weak to be so apart!

EDIT: For some reason it posted twise, sorry.

[Post-Something]

Anytime :)

[STJ]

Perhaps it would be easier to educate people if there were hundreds of communists in one town as opposed to a dozen, but the idea that we'll all move off to some small state and overthrow the government is..well..stupid.
There is not even that in my town there is one that i know about. That is the problem i dont even think we could overthrow a small state currently.

[Code]

bump:D

[BlackCapital]

Like H-L-V-S said, workers unions are probably the most useful/likely to be revolutionary tools. By increasing unionization throughout all fields of labor we can grow in number, thus grow in power, and struggle for concessions from the capitalists which will simultaneously spur the development of class consciousness.

Although, the idea you propose of a large number of leftist leaning individuals occupying a small geographic region is not completely ridiculous in my mind. Get enough of us together and obtain some productive power=commune party.

[Code]

Finally some1 who sees the prospect of this!
I mean I realize people need to be converted 2 our cause but if we had a center then Other people who agree with us could come and make it even bigger and unless we wet invaded I think we'd do pretty damn well!

[Code]

You know we have all these brilliant ideas but people say it has/does never work but if we do this and succeed like I know we could then it would prove to the world that it works!!!

[Stranger Than Paradise]

How could it work? How could a small section of the proletarian population who are enlightened on the subjects of communism and class struggle emancipate the working class as a whole?

[Code]

We start in a small unpopulated area and make a stable group. Then we show the world how it works well in the real world and more people who share our cause join us. We grow and become strong and then use that as a center of operations for liberation & informing the workers of the world and a small, and growing, (I'm assuming anarcho-communist) community! :)

I know it sounds stupid and idealistic but if you think about it, IT MAKES SENSE! I thought about this alot before posting this thread and even more sense posting and I think it's truely a good plan!!

Also it would avoid the militant take-overs that result in communist despotisms which are (obviously) bad PR for the ideology.

[Code]

Bump

[NecroCommie]

I have thought about it too, but I started to doubt the idea when I wondered how to keep the small economy communist, or at least socialist. Any thoughts on this, Code?

[NecroCommie]

There is not even that in my town there is one that i know about. That is the problem i dont even think we could overthrow a small state currently.

Are you friggin kidding me? If the support of marxist parties in the world is combined it is calculated in hundreds of millions, if it isnt over one billion already. And I'm being fair: I dont count in the Chinese.

[Code]

I have thought about it too, but I started to doubt the idea when I wondered how to keep the small economy communist, or at least socialist. Any thoughts on this, Code?

I think that we could have semi-parlimentary community vote & council
Also I think there could be a VERY minor constitution that makes sure people don't come in and turn us kkkapitalist

I'm sure there's other ways too but I personally want anarcho-communism

[NecroCommie]

Ah, but heres the point. You talk about keeping socialism against internal threaths, with which I have no problems. What about external threaths to socialism? How can a small nation keep up with external trade without giving up to economic imperialism?

Secondly, how can we have no monetary system, but trade with other countries? Also, what would be the general line to keep the land decently wealthy. (as in: People dont die everyday due to starvation-wealthy)

[Cult of Reason]

I've been thinking about revolution and how one could be possible in modern, oppressive, 1st world countries and I can really only see it happening if we're all in one place. I mean if there's just a few of us here and a few of us there then the ignorant majority washes over! Therefor I really think that we should deside on ONE region to make our own and to liberate and then spread. From what I've read, a method simaliar to this one work in the mid stages of the Cuban revolution and I think if everyone (or at least most of us) on this forum, and the orginizations seeking to end oppression met somewhere that we could expand from then we could make our own, better, country!!

Your best bet would be Australia. That is the only single nation-state in the entire world that has any prospect of being self-sufficient, with a low population (20 million) and population density, huge solar power potential and large reserves of iron, aluminium, copper and other essential minerals. See the "Full Report" link in my signature.

[Code]

Your best bet would be Australia. That is the only single nation-state in the entire world that has any prospect of being self-sufficient, with a low population (20 million) and population density, huge solar power potential and large reserves of iron, aluminium, copper and other essential minerals. See the "Full Report" link in my signature.

That's actually quite brilliant!
And it's also easy to defend from external threats.
But it's kinda big for this kinda thing.
Maybe Hawaii? But that's Amerikkkan so they'd just bomb us.

[Decolonize The Left]

Hmm, well what areas would you be proposing?

Maybe we should all focus on our own areas? Because that way, we would actually know the interests of the people that inhabit the area, and the everyday troubles that they have to face, and thus be able to connect with them more easily? It would certainly be pretentious for me to travel all the way over to France and preach what they should do over there, when I may not actually understand the specifics of their situation.

Post-Something is absolutely correct.

There is no need to 'centralize' revolutionary action for several reasons:
1) Revolutions are de-centralized, as they involve mass movements by individuals acting in their own communities.
2) Centralization is problematic for two reasons: the first is that it is easy to target and address. The second is that is limits the ability of the organization to address local issues which aren't present and/or accounted for in the central place.
3) Centralization limits possibility.
4) Centralization runs counter to most anarchist grains, whereby it is conceived of as consolidation of power and hence dangerous.

A certain degree of centralization is necessary, but a better term for this would be organization. One can organize and engage one's community at any time - and this should be done. We'll get more accomplished by doing this than by wondering how to handle the whole nation/world in one fell swoop.

- August

[Code]

Well first off your 2 & 3 where exactly the same.
Second, to answer #1; that would continue! It's not like if we make a "community" for ourselves it would stop work outside that base! In fact it could serve as an example as to how anarcho-communism works in the real world and not just on paper!
From this example MORE people who would discard communism because of the misperseption that it can't work would take notice and think "hey! This does work! I should join the cause!" And besides that it would be a foothold against kkkapitalism and oppression! I mean if you think about it you can see how I'm probsbly right! I've thought about this a crazy amount and I really can't see it failing without invasion!

Also I never said anything about magically freeing the world in one fell swoop so idk how you got that! In fact, what you're talking about continuing is more trying for a magic world revolution then mine!!

[Code]

Bump

[Velkas]

I'm part of a project which plans something astonishingly similar to what you propose: The Federated Commonwealth of Malatora (www.fedcom.co.nr). We plan to gather enough people and travel to a sparsely populated area of Africa, where we can create a socialist stronghold. This new nation project plans to employ a socialist economic system, and discussions regarding making the government more libertarian are currently under way.

[Delirium]

This is completely idiotic.

Moving to a unpopulated area and trying to build a communist society from scratch is bound to fail. There is a reason why unpopulated areas are unpopulated. Its cause its really hard for people to live in.

What if there are already people living there?

[Vendetta]

Therefor I really think that we should deside on ONE region to make our own and to liberate and then spread.

So that we make easier targets? No thanks.

[Velkas]

What if there are already people living there? There are already a few people, but they are extremely poor and the government that controls the territory is extremely corrupt. They will likely join us, an if not, they can move to another part of the African country.

[Delirium]

There are already a few people, but they are extremely poor and the government that controls the territory is extremely corrupt. They will likely join us, an if not, they can move to another part of the African country.

Lol

So if they don't like what your group is doing you are going to kick them off their own land?

[Velkas]

If they want to move off that land, they can. It is not "their own land" because it belongs to everyone. And anyway, I don't see any reason they would want to leave us. We would be giving them a chance to live in a free and equal society, why would they not want to take the chance we give them?

[Code]

Why Africa? I mean I see why in a population stand point but the chances of violence are huge and as you said "the government is very corrupt" so they'd maybe pull a "devils on horseback"
And btw I don't advokate kicking ppl out of their homes for this.

[Velkas]

Why Africa? I mean I see why in a population stand point but the chances of violence are huge and as you said "the government is very corrupt" so they'd maybe pull a "devils on horseback"
The people are poor and have been oppressed by both capitalism and imperialism.



And btw I don't advokate kicking ppl out of their homes for this.
Neither do I, but if they really don't want to live in a socialist region (I don't see any reason they shouldn't), they can leave. We won't force them to stay.

[Code]

So how'd you come up with the name?

[Velkas]

I didn't, the founder did. But the name "Malatora" was designed as a code-name, as well as a way to have a unique name used virtually nowhere else. This has certain benefits, such as the name being predominant on any internet search.;)

[gorillafuck]

There are already a few people, but they are extremely poor and the government that controls the territory is extremely corrupt. They will likely join us, an if not, they can move to another part of the African country.
So you're going into a territory under an extremely corrupt government to try to build your own government?

What happens when the government tries to stop you from revolting against them, and they massacre the people already living in this territory while they're at it?

[Velkas]

The country we wish to create our stronghold in may be corrupt, but they have almost no military strength. But, just to be safe, one of the first things we'll do after settling in Africa is create a strategic system of defences.

[Delirium]

Wait is this some internet game or something?

[Velkas]

No, it is not.
We are serious in trying to fulfil our goal and dream of a free and equal socialist stronghold.

[Delirium]

So when are you all leaving?

Are you going to have the internet in your socialist stronghold?

[Velkas]

So when are you all leaving?
Once we have enough members (a few hundred or more), estimated to be in about 10 to 20 years.


Are you going to have the internet in your socialist stronghold?
Of course; we aren't creating a clone of North Korea or anything.:cool:

[Hoxhaist]

the place of the vanguard is with the people at the spearhead of the revolution not abandoning the people to go set up colonies. what do you do if people resist your "socialist" colony? will you enforce your will by force just like the capitalist colonialists? Your plan will fail because it is contrary to truly revolutionary progress because every commune has failed regardless of ideology

[Code]

Isn't every commune of communist ideology?
Anyway this wouldn't be a commune under a nations law!

[Velkas]

Anyway this wouldn't be a commune under a nations law!
I don't understand what you mean.:confused:

[Code]

I mean say it was in Alaska (probably bad example) that's in amerikkka. But we wouldn't live under amerikan law. We'd function under our own anarcho-commie rules! Most communes fail because they don't work under their "foster country's" capitalist law/society.

And to say an indepentant commune would fail is to say communism in city-states would fail. Am I right?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I really am left baffled by this thread. I have thought about this again and again and I still have no understanding to why this would be beneficial to class struggle. Code, just think about this, how could leftists coming together in one place to form a leftist community raise class consciousness, because that is our first goal at the moment. To raise class consciousness. And I can see no way that this would aid in the process. Isolating ourselves from the struggle and building our own little world would get us nowhere.

[( R )evolution]

Have we not learned the lesson of Vietnam, DPRK, China, USSR? There are certain conditions which must be in place before a socialist society can be established, and eventually communism. As Marxists, we must recognize the need of the bourgeois and capitalism itself. It is the progression of the division of labor, we cant make the transition from feudalism to communism, capitalism is needed. Hence why Marx advocated revolution in industrialized European nations. Some Trotskyists will say that the proletariat can not only overthrow the feudal powers but continue the revolution to make the reforms that the bourgeois needed to do and continue that struggle into socialism and eventually communism. But they recognize the need of the bourgeois reforms in order to achieve communism.



To a further point, it seems like you want to establish a utopia and use that as an example and a rallying point for other areas of the world. We must gain class consciousness by exposing the true face of capitalism and the notion that a greater society exists beyond the horizon.

Setting up a society in the middle of nowhere with a few hundreds (maybe thousand) left leaning individuals will do nothing to gain any class consciousness or even spread revolution.

[( R )evolution]

And to say an indepentant commune would fail is to say communism in city-states would fail. Am I right?


No you are completely wrong. I suggest you read the communist manifesto or some of the stickies above because nothing you are saying has any basis whatsoever.

[HoChiMilo]

i'm.surprised.nobody.has.brought.up.the.freestate. project.

all.those.lackey.post-left.libertarians.and.ron.pau,.supporters.are.plan ning.a.mass.exodus.to.new.hampshire.to.promote.lib ertarian.ideas.by.concentrating.in.one.area.and.in fluencing.public.policy.by.voting.libertarians.int o.local.offices.

yes,libertarians.pushing.for.more.politicians.:lau gh::laugh::laugh:
hey,it's.not.my.idea.

again,sorry.for.the.periods.i.should.be.getting.a. new.keyboard.today.harharhar.

[Code]

Have we not learned the lesson of Vietnam, DPRK, China, USSR? There are certain conditions which must be in place before a socialist society can be established, and eventually communism. As Marxists, we must recognize the need of the bourgeois and capitalism itself. It is the progression of the division of labor, we cant make the transition from feudalism to communism, capitalism is needed. Hence why Marx advocated revolution in industrialized European nations. Some Trotskyists will say that the proletariat can not only overthrow the feudal powers but continue the revolution to make the reforms that the bourgeois needed to do and continue that struggle into socialism and eventually communism. But they recognize the need of the bourgeois reforms in order to achieve communism.



To a further point, it seems like you want to establish a utopia and use that as an example and a rallying point for other areas of the world. We must gain class consciousness by exposing the true face of capitalism and the notion that a greater society exists beyond the horizon.

Setting up a society in the middle of nowhere with a few hundreds (maybe thousand) left leaning individuals will do nothing to gain any class consciousness or even spread revolution.

First off those countries failed because of despotism. A militant revolution always ends up this way because military's are always hiarchal (excluding workers militia)

Second, the most common arguement against communism is that it only works on paper. Now wouldn't the best way to disprove that be to make a working community?

[Code]

Bump

[( R )evolution]

First off those countries failed because of despotism. A militant revolution always ends up this way because military's are always hiarchal (excluding workers militia)

Second, the most common arguement against communism is that it only works on paper. Now wouldn't the best way to disprove that be to make a working community?

The root of that was Russia wasn't industrialized, hence why Lenin introduced the NEP. Capitalist reforms.

You are pressing for a utopia, communism is an international movement not just a fucking community in the middle of a forest or Alaska. We must strike at the heart of the problem which is the exploitation of the proletariat and the division of labor.

[Code]

And how exactly do u propose a whole world abandonment of capitalism. I mean we've been trying all your ways sense Marx and I really don't see much progess!

[( R )evolution]

It isnt necessarily the abandonment of capitalism but rather communism through revolutions of the proletariat. The liberation of the proletariat from the bourgeois. At this point in time, we must try our best to spread class consciousness and support the oppressed people in class struggles across the world.

[Code]

And why can't we support them from a communisst community?

[Rusty Shackleford]

say a commune were to be created, and it is self sufficient. even if (from africa) you were able to send media to Japan, Australia, USA, UK, Finland, Bolivia and so on. they would all feel disconnected. the remoteness of the commune would make it seem like a fluke succeess.

say, it were a global federation of communes, not localized, im sure it would have much more potential.

I agree we need to do something and for now i support education, and a bit of propagandizing.

Self-sufficiency is a goal that should be met. If it is a staggered golbal revolution though, and say a third of the world was self sufficient. Would not the revolutionaries form the 2/3rds of the rest of the world just go to the other places? i know that not everyone would, but it would sap the chance of success if it took to long for the rest of the world ot follow suit.

The comment on Australia was interesting indeed.

[Code]

say, it were a global federation of communes, not localized, im sure it would have much more potential.

...

The comment on Australia was interesting indeed.

That's brilliant! But how uneasedropped apon could we comunicate?

Also I really like the Australia idea too

[Velkas]

say, it were a global federation of communes, not localized, im sure it would have much more potential.
Perhaps if we created socialist new-nation projects (like the Federated Commonwealth of Malatora) throughout the word, we could do something that would have the benefits of centralisation, as well as the benefits of a worldwide revolution against capitalism. So say we begin by creating a few such projects, small sparks spread across the world, and create more once we have enough people, until we have one in every region of the world. We could work together, and a confederation of allied communities, to create socialism throughout the world.

[Code]

So where are the best places in each continent??

[Velkas]

A location in which we can be self sufficient, with room for many people, but also an area that is easy to defend. We must look into such locations, throughout the world.

[Code]

Sunny
Field
Hill
Trees

Big sunny plateu surrounded by trees?

[Velkas]

That is one such type of suitable location, but there are many different types of terrains where we can make a stronghold for socialism.

[Code]

Ya, so where?

[Velkas]

I don't know right now, but if we try to research locations throughout the world, we should be able to find some good regions that have several of the following:


Corrupt government
Poor people
Weak military
Easy self-sufficiency
Easy to defend

Some good terrain types:


Mountainous
Forest
Island
Coastal

Some bad terrain types:


Desert
Polar