On Revolution

[Faust]

Hello Comrades,

I'm interested to know your opinions on the most effective ways of achieving a Communist revolution, whether through democratic election, armed uprising, a mass strike or something else.

I want to know your thoughts on whether it is important to achieve the revolution in a single country before spreading it to the world, or to achieve revolution throughout the world simultaneously.

Furthermore, upon the successful revolution what then is to be done?

~Faust

:hammersickle:

[ZeroNowhere]

That varies largely depending on where this revolution is.

[ezza_lv]

It's important to have many supporters to make a communism revolution !!!
And of course it must happen in more country's at one time, so that everyone had stronger morality and believed in success!
One problem, that most people don't understand what means communism, most of them think that it brings terrible problems what happened in world war 2 and cold war...
Well, I can say that maybe the soviet government wasn't strong enough, but that's why we all learning the history to make sure that bad things don't repeat again !

[Il Medico]

If by revolution you mean 'the revolution'. Then it will start in the most developed countries and spread world wide. It will not 100% simultaneous, but it will spread quickly. And this revolution will only be achived by an armed struggle against the bourgeois.

[robbo203]

If by revolution you mean 'the revolution'. Then it will start in the most developed countries and spread world wide. It will not 100% simultaneous, but it will spread quickly. And this revolution will only be achived by an armed struggle against the bourgeois.



Why? Why should armed struggle be necessary? I would say that is the very last thing we would want to resort becuase 1) it would be suicidal folly to take on the power of the state directly 2) the severe dislocations it would cause making it very difficult to establish a socialist society 3) the authoritarian tendencies that effective military action requires which runs counter to the notion that the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself.

Even back in the 19th century Marx and Engels were pointing out that it had become possible in some parts of the world to carry out a socialist revolution peacefully. The opportunities for this are now far greater than then. As the the socialist movement grows so will it utterly transform the whole social climate. Democratic values will become very much more entrenched and deep-seated than they are now. That will prepare the way for a democratic revolution.

Capitalist governments can only function with the acquiescence of those over whom they govern. When workers withdraw their consent - and we have seen limited examples of this when "peoples power" more or less bloodlessly toppled the old state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe - there will be no power on earth that could stop the proletariamn revolution. The armed forces themselves being members of the working class - along with their families and firends - will have already been heavily influenced by socialist ideas so that any attempt to crush the revolution will be completely resisted. Even the capitalists or some of them (Engels was a capitalist!) will see that there is no point in resisting the inevitable and that socialism might after all not be such a bad thing

[El Rojo]

i second robbo203. do we really want the socialist utopia to arrive on a tide of blood? do not we of the left recognize that violence should be the last resort?

Marx states in the communist manifesto that the proletariat must "win the battle of democracy"

[Faust]

Then it will start in the most developed countries and spread world wide.

Why will it start in the most developed countries? when In the third world we have had the most successful revolutions... Canada and the States have never even come close to Socialism or Communism.


And this revolution will only be achived by an armed struggle against the bourgeois.

I disagree here, as said by robbo203 it would be suicidal, The communist movement does not have enough supporters for something of that scale. In the developed countries most people think they live good lives, free from oppression. They would not be willing to bite the hand that feeds.


It's important to have many supporters to make a communism revolution !!!
And of course it must happen in more country's at one time, so that everyone had stronger morality and believed in success!
One problem, that most people don't understand what means communism, most of them think that it brings terrible problems what happened in world war 2 and cold war...
Well, I can say that maybe the soviet government wasn't strong enough, but that's why we all learning the history to make sure that bad things don't repeat again !

I think we as communists need a united front in order to spread our system, whatever happened to the Communist International? sectarianism and infighting is such a huge roadblock in our way. One of our primary goals should be the education of the people. Since we also aren't able to outdo the bourgeois media the spread of our ideas should be through noticeable actions towards the betterment of society. An armed uprising would have an adverse affect in first world countries, while it's a plausible and sometimes effective method in third world countries

[The Douche]

If you think there will be no violence then you're out of your mind. If you think that the only solution is violence (or that violence is a solution at all in the revolutionary process) then you are possibly a sociopath.

Violence will be part of the forming of the new world, but our revolution doesn't rest on violence. There will be elements of the oppressed people's who have bad ideas, or who will remain loyal to the forces of reaction, these people will be used by the ruling classes to prevent the people from making gains, and try to undo the progress that has been made. These gains will have to be defended.

[Faust]

If you think there will be no violence then you're out of your mind.

I did not say it but I believe that a revolution through violence is impossible, and a revolution without violence is also impossible. An interesting paradox, haha.

[obsolete discourse]

Hello Comrades,

[Multiple choice question:]

I'm interested to know your opinions on the most effective ways of achieving a Communist revolution, whether through democratic election, armed uprising, a mass strike or something else.

I would have to circle "Something else."

If revolution is "a rupture in the history of man", the messianic event that deposes both capitalist time and capitalist being, then the only force capable of such a task is a force that manifests in divine violence. It is no coincidence that within the Paris Commune the proletariat took aim and fired upon the instruments of time itself.

Walter Benjamin writes that all violence has law-writing capacities and law-enforcing capacities. This the almost (existential problem) that has led to the shipwrecks of all the great revolutions of our time--the failure of the proletariat to face the problems and complexities of power and force when making her attempts to communize (see: spreading of the commune, dissolution of the state). If there were to be a violence practiced by the proletariat that could absolve itself of the potentialities to write a new law it must be a violence of pure means.

Communism is not a different society (much less a different way of managing this one). It is communism, a different life in its totality. All pathetic attempts to reorganize the state, to manage capital, offend what little sensibility of our embodied practice, as the proletariat, we have left. Revolution will happen with nothing less than self-abolishing event after self-abolishing event. There is no road to revolution. There is, on the contrary, a terrible a-tonality to be set to music and resonated with immediate practices of negation and rupture.

[F9]

Moved



I'm interested to know your opinions on the most effective ways of achieving a Communist revolution, whether through democratic election, armed uprising, a mass strike or something else.

I dont think there is a correct or incorrect answer on this.Lots of thing may lead to communist revolution.What it seems ideal to me?Vast majority of people been aware of what revolution is about, raise the class consciousness, inform etc, which would lead to a powerful proletarian movement which would start the revolution and no one could stop it.


I want to know your thoughts on whether it is important to achieve the revolution in a single country before spreading it to the world, or to achieve revolution throughout the world simultaneously.

Having revolutions, and most importantly successful ones all over the world is something taken from science fiction currently.Is impossible but is indeed the ideal thing.Our goal is global revolution but we dont reject local revolution which may be taken only threw some or one country.


Furthermore, upon the successful revolution what then is to be done?

Communism..From each according his needs, to each according his needs.
Nothing less nothing more.


Fuserg9:star:

[Tatarin]

Why? Why should armed struggle be necessary?

It's not what is planned to happen, but what will most likely happen. Take Venezuela for example, back in 2003 I think, when the capitalists made a coup and imprisoned Chavez. He basically got free because the Venezuelan state, more precisely the military, was in favour for Chavez and against the capitalists.

Or take the example of the protests in Iran, all the people who aren't even fighting for socialism but rather a more free capitalism with less influence from the religious institutions. The Iranian state is all set to crush them, and eventually will, if the people themselves do not realize that they must take up arms and fight the state machine as well.

Another one; Burma, demonstrations for a week, and then silence. They speak with guns, so then the people must also speak with guns.


1) it would be suicidal folly to take on the power of the state directly

If the state has grown to such power then it is already too late. Sure, when the state is shaking and the people have some power to wield then maybe the rest will follow. I guess it also depends on what place in the world we are talking about. But it will defend itself along with the capitalists who rule it, they aren't willing to let go of the wealth they have.


2) the severe dislocations it would cause making it very difficult to establish a socialist society

How do you mean?


3) the authoritarian tendencies that effective military action requires which runs counter to the notion that the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself.

Not necessary. The Iranian uprisings seems pretty spontaneous, and they don't really have "leaders", well, except perhaps Missouri, but that is more like a face for the uprisings than a leader. We're not talking about a civil war but a revolution, and that would be a period when most people not only think but know the state and all that it represents are bogus and that a new society is needed.


The opportunities for this are now far greater than then. As the the socialist movement grows so will it utterly transform the whole social climate.

But there will always be resistance, and more likely, new technology to puch people into submission. Today western governments can point in any direction and say "terrorist" and that would be the end of it. What we must do today is to rebuild confidence in the thought of a socialist future, not only to make the world better, but also to avoid ignorance and hopelessness which increases the chances for systems like fascism to grow. The recent European elections are proof of that.


Capitalist governments can only function with the acquiescence of those over whom they govern.

Or the on people's fear of the capitalists, often in the forms of authoritarian governments.


When workers withdraw their consent - and we have seen limited examples of this when "peoples power" more or less bloodlessly toppled the old state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe - there will be no power on earth that could stop the proletariamn revolution.

That is different. Most of the old Soviet State was corrupt, many came back in "the free states" that came after as politicians. And it should also be noted that the state itself was in a crisis, I mean, it's not everyday ordinary people shoot at governmental buildings with tanks.


The armed forces themselves being members of the working class - along with their families and firends - will have already been heavily influenced by socialist ideas so that any attempt to crush the revolution will be completely resisted.

That's a difficult question, but I guess parts of the military can be swayed. However, you can not forget the amounts of propaganda they are exposed to in places like the US. The working class is simply a force to be reckoned with since, first, they do everything, and second, of their sheer number. I'm just saying that the every person shouldn't be counted on to support the revolution once it happens.


Even the capitalists or some of them (Engels was a capitalist!) will see that there is no point in resisting the inevitable and that socialism might after all not be such a bad thing

Some, few idealists perhaps, but most are completely intoxicated with the power and wealth they have to just let it all go. Why should they live with those workers instead of retiring at some summer house on the beach in Hawaii? Why should they have to do everything instead of hiring people to clean and wash and all? I'd say it gets worse when the children grow up in immense wealth, then they that will become their literal reality.

I mean, just ask the same question to ordinary workers in more developed countries, say Scandinavia, if they would want to get rid of social benefits, pensions, safety, union rights, vacations in order for, say, the nation to become a better place to live in?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why? Why should armed struggle be necessary?
Simply because it's impossible to defeat force, with out force. 'Armed struggle' may not be the best way, however there is no way any worker's revolution will be "peaceful"; revolution is the height of class-conflict.




I would say that is the very last thing we would want to resort becuase 1) it would be suicidal folly to take on the power of the state directly Uh, OK.

Why would it be suicidal and folly?


2) the severe dislocations it would cause making it very difficult to establish a socialist society So it would be easier without a state? I think not.


3) the authoritarian tendencies that effective military action requires which runs counter to the notion that the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself.
This is a logical fallacy. Military operations may require centralism, but "authoritarian tendencies" is pushing it. Tell me where the anarchists in Catalonia 'authoritarian'? I don't know why, but something tells me your trying to draw parallels to 'authoritarianism' and military actions with certain tendencies and revolutions (cough *October revolution* cough cough *Marxism-Leninism) that simply aren't there, at least in the way your logic portrays it.

If the working class is supposed to emancipate itself, then I think they would do a better job if they form and organized, unified force that can carry out effective military defense and attacks, rather than relying on violence as some 'last resort'.


Even back in the 19th century Marx and Engels were pointing out that it had become possible in some parts of the world to carry out a socialist revolution peacefully. The opportunities for this are now far greater than then. As the the socialist movement grows so will it utterly transform the whole social climate. Democratic values will become very much more entrenched and deep-seated than they are now. That will prepare the way for a democratic revolution.
Marx may have hinted at the US or England being able to peacefully undergo revolution, but he didn't think so of France (It would take forever to find that quote, however I'm sure you know of it). Your assumption that it will be easier to 'democratically' initiate revolution now, is based on pretty much nothing but nice utopianism. In actuality, we now live in an imperialist dominated world with scales of violence that were unthinkable when Marx may have hinted at a possibility of peaceful transformation.


Capitalist governments can only function with the acquiescence of those over whom they govern. When workers withdraw their consent - and we have seen limited examples of this when "peoples power" more or less bloodlessly toppled the old state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe - there will be no power on earth that could stop the proletariamn revolution.Wow, ok first; the socialist camp in the CCCP and Eastern Europe did not dissolve as a result of "people's power" or anything like that. Second, your obvious disdain for socialism is shown here, as you attribute more significance for the "proletarian revolution" in your reference to the dissolution of the USSR and eastern Europe, plunging into privatized chaos, rather than the actual worker's revolutions that created these "state-capitalist regimes". If you had any shred of sense for proletarian internationalism you would recognize, even amongst your cloud of liberalism, that the lives of workers have went to shit in Russia and Eastern Europe in comparison to the former socialist bloc.


The armed forces themselves being members of the working class - along with their families and firends - will have already been heavily influenced by socialist ideas so that any attempt to crush the revolution will be completely resisted. Even the capitalists or some of them (Engels was a capitalist!) will see that there is no point in resisting the inevitable and that socialism might after all not be such a bad thingUtopianism, idealism, in other words dreamy illusions. This is what your theory is based on. If you are so confident that the worker's movement can be built so easily, and simply on faith and reasoning, rather than actual organization; then I don't know at all what kind of understanding you have of class conflict, capitalism, and socialism.
----
Engels was not a capitalist:


Friedrich Engels was born in Barmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barmen), Rhine Province (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_Province) of the kingdom of Prussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia) (now part of Wuppertal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal) in North Rhine-Westphalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Rhine-Westphalia), Germany) as the elder son of a German textile manufacturer, with whom he had a strained relationship.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels#cite_note-0) Due to family circumstances, Engels dropped out of High school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school) and was sent to work as a nonsalaried office clerk at a commercial house in Bremen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremen) in 1838.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels#cite_note-engels-bio-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels#cite_note-tucker-2)

In 1842, the 22-year-old Engels was sent to Manchester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester), England to work for the textile firm of Ermen and Engels in which his father was a shareholder.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels#cite_note-en-1893-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels#cite_note-bbc-art1-6) Engels' father thought that working at the Manchester firm might make Engels reconsider the radical leanings that he had developed in high school.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels#cite_note-engels-bio-1)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels#cite_note-bbc-art1-6)

During February 1848, there was a revolution in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848_in_France) that eventually spread to other Western European countries. This event caused Engels & Marx to go back to their home country of Prussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia), specifically the city of Cologne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne). While living in Cologne, they created and served as editors for a new daily newspaper called the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Rheinische_Zeitung).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels#cite_note-en-1893-5)

Once Engels made it to England, he decided to re-enter the commercial firm where his father held shares in order to help support Marx. He hated this work intensely but knew that his friend needed the support.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels#cite_note-13)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engels#cite_note-14)

[teenagebricks]

If revolution comes at a time when there is mass support it can be achieved relatively peacefully through general strikes or possibly even an election. If communists force it on the population then there is bound to be bloodshed, this is undesirable in my opinion BUT, I would support a people's war waged upon the state and only the state.