Where does the revolution come from?

[Ahmed]

The age old question. Should the revolution come from the poor, working class majority? They are the most oppressed as well as having strength in number. However, most of them are too oppressed to care about anything beyond food on the table. The other side of the argument suggests the intellectuals in the middle class. However, they could be viewed as elitist morons who know nothing about the plight of the working man from the poor's view. Not to mention they do not have the same numerical strength and thus could be easily defeated. The do have the education and knowledge required to execute it well, however.

And what about the bourgeois? They can't ALL be bad? My father is a doctor, so he does not exploit labour for profit. He even treats the poor for free (out of religious reasons, not leftist thought, admittedly). I myself am a member of this class, albeit on the very low end of it (or I could argue being on the top of the middle class). However, I would be in full support of a just revolution and would gladly give up my wealth in the name of equality without any disdain. What would the fate of such people be?

Keep in mind that I am not speaking of a specific ideology, however this is in the general realm of far let revolutions.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes, it should generally be the oppressed working class fighting the oppressors in the revolution. Some will argue that they'll just decide to do this themselves(Marx argued this point). However, there are others who feel they need to be encouraged to begin an uprising(Lenin's vanguardism). This vanguard party would generally be led by a party who is educated in Marxist theory. So if the poor oppressed class as you say cares about wanting food, if they're given a reason to fight for this food they will. Others could be like "hey, you want food? Let's fight against the Capitalist oppressors for it." I'm sure something like that would spark their attention.

As far as the middle class goes, I'm not sure how many of them would actually join the revolution, but I'm sure some would certainly sympathize with it as many of them are proletarians themselves. And then there's the people like your dad. Sure some of them are generous and would provide services to the poor such as the example with your dad. People like this would also probably be sympathizers to a certain extent, but wouldn't like having to give up their wealth. The bourgeoisie on the other hand would never be sympathizers. They own the means of production(thus your doctor dad wouldn't be considered bourgeoisie). All their wealth is produced by enslaving others. These of course would be the people rising up and creating revolution. These bourgeoisie as we have seen in previous revolutions were exiled, killed, etc. I think personally it would be best to just make them work. Make sense? I wasn't 100% sure what you were asking, but I think I got it.

[Ahmed]

Well due to the theories of people like Keynes, Capitalism has evolved and become smarter, which is why Marx's predictions did not entirely come true. Capitalism has learned to trim its edges. Yes, it still exploits the poor, very much so. However, it does not push them to their absolute limit anymore. It gives them something little, but it's still something they would be afraid to lose by rising up against the system. They would find little motivation as they would not want to risk their lives and the lives of their families when the status quo at least provides them with subsistence. How do you motivate them?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well due to the theories of people like Keynes, Capitalism has evolved and become smarter, which is why Marx's predictions did not entirely come true. Capitalism has learned to trim its edges. Yes, it still exploits the poor, very much so. However, it does not push them to their absolute limit anymore. It gives them something little, but it's still something they would be afraid to lose by rising up against the system. They would find little motivation as they would not want to risk their lives and the lives of their families when the status quo at least provides them with subsistence. How do you motivate them?

As far as I know, They would be motivated. Many people living in poverty even have trouble affording the basics. However, many wouldn't rise up right away because they either would feel it's hopeless or just don't feel it would do anything. By having them develop an understanding in Marxist theory some would change their minds, but not all. You'll always have people who are against Communism, even poor, working class people. The motivation for the remainder would be knowing they would have money to have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs. Plus they would still have enough for leisure activities and decent living. They wouldn't be anybody's slaves either.

[Ahmed]

You would still have trouble motivating them. Yes they are oppressed and cannot even afford the basics, but as long as they can afford one loaf of bread per day, they will not want to risk it. Not to mention the illusion capitalism spreads about how they too can one day become capitalists themselves. In my opinion, yes the revolution needs a working class backbone, and yes it is the poor who should mostly be the ones to finally carry it out. However it is not them who would start it. The revolution would be started by middle class intellectuals whose efforts would motivate and educate the people and thus expanding the revolution and giving it popular support. Che was a doctor and Castro was a scientist, both hardly working class. However the Cuban people eventually rallied behind them.

[More Fire for the People]

The proletariat, the poor, the people, the broken-hearted, those who write lamentations on the walls of existence, the disenchanted, the disenfranchised, the frankly disrespected, the assaulted, the victimized, the homeless, the unrighteous--in summation, the oppressed.

[9]

The age old question. Should the revolution come from the poor, working class majority? They are the most oppressed as well as having strength in number.

Yes, this. It must come from the poor working class majority. If leftist revolution comes and it is not led by the poor working class, it will fail.

[revolution inaction]

The age old question. Should the revolution come from the poor, working class majority? They are the most oppressed as well as having strength in number. However, most of them are too oppressed to care about anything beyond food on the table. The other side of the argument suggests the intellectuals in the middle class. However, they could be viewed as elitist morons who know nothing about the plight of the working man from the poor's view. Not to mention they do not have the same numerical strength and thus could be easily defeated. The do have the education and knowledge required to execute it well, however.

And what about the bourgeois? They can't ALL be bad? My father is a doctor, so he does not exploit labour for profit. He even treats the poor for free (out of religious reasons, not leftist thought, admittedly). I myself am a member of this class, albeit on the very low end of it (or I could argue being on the top of the middle class). However, I would be in full support of a just revolution and would gladly give up my wealth in the name of equality without any disdain. What would the fate of such people be?

Keep in mind that I am not speaking of a specific ideology, however this is in the general realm of far let revolutions.

You seem to have a strange understanding of class. When revolutionaries talk about class we are talking about economic class not social class, you seem to be combining the two. In a economic analysis of class the working class are the people who have to work for a wage because the only thing they have to sell is there labour, the bourgeois are the ones who own the means of production and employ others to operate it for them, exploitation of other peoples labour for profit is one of the defining features of the bourgeois.
The middle class doesn't really exist in this analysis, its really a term referring to social class not economic class.

Its not about good and bad its about material interests, the intrests of the ruling class (the bourgeois) and the working class are opposed, the ruling class benifit from the current system and would probebly be worst off in a communist society, the workers wold be better off with communism.

[Pogue]

I think the revolution should come from a small group of pill popping, weed growing hemp wearing hippie radicals in a squatted communal flat in Inslington, through music.

[Q]

The age old question. Should the revolution come from the poor, working class majority? [...]
It isn't a question of should. This is like asking "should an apple fall from a tree?". Revolutions are a natural phenomena in a society riddled with contradictions. In ancient times the revolutionary roles was played by the slaves, in feudalism the bourgeoisie played the revolutionary role and now it is the working class that has the most consistent revolutionary character. It is unique from all other previous revolutionary classes in that it exists so universally. The working class is the only class who actually runs society and can make it grind to a halt. This is why socialists emphasise on working class independence, working class democracy and working class internationalism.

[9]

You would still have trouble motivating them. Yes they are oppressed and cannot even afford the basics, but as long as they can afford one loaf of bread per day, they will not want to risk it. Not to mention the illusion capitalism spreads about how they too can one day become capitalists themselves. In my opinion, yes the revolution needs a working class backbone, and yes it is the poor who should mostly be the ones to finally carry it out. However it is not them who would start it. The revolution would be started by middle class intellectuals whose efforts would motivate and educate the people and thus expanding the revolution and giving it popular support. Che was a doctor and Castro was a scientist, both hardly working class. However the Cuban people eventually rallied behind them.

A revolution run by "middle class intellectuals" will, I suspect, beget a society geared toward the interests of "middle class intellectuals", in which the objectives of the revolution will not be properly fulfilled. After all, I don't think anyone here will argue that Cuba has achieved communism. In my view, Cuba is state capitalist, and state capitalism seems to be the most one can expect from bourgeois revolutionaries.
This isn't to say that "middle class intellectuals" can't participate and help to organize workers. Its simply to say that the more oppressed workers should be at the forefront of the revolution.

[Rjevan]

I agree with most what has been said before, the revolution must come from the working class, from the opressed proletariat, otherwise it is no socialist/communist revolution and is doomed to fail. The revolution can never be based on the bourgeoisie! Of course I subscribe to Lenin's vanguard theory but this means in no way that the revolution should be led by the bourgeoisie. This is simply impossible, as SolidarityWithIran, radicalgraffiti and Q outlined, since revolutions must come from the opressed and exploited class and aim against the oppressive and exploitative ruling class. The burgeoisie owns the means of productions and exploits the proletariat and you can be damn sure that they won't fight against themselves for the rights of their workers. ;)

Middle class intelectuals like Che or Lenin (who was aristocratic in fact) were leaders of the vanguard party, Engels' father was a capitalist and many people here have a middle class background so of course not everybody not part of the proletartiat is automatically bad and has no right to work for or participate in the revolution but again this absolutely does not mean that a revolution can be based on and started and led by the burgeoisie regardless if you refer to it as social or as economical class.

[Ahmed]

If one waits for the revolution to come from the working class, you would have to wait until things become completely unbearable so that the working class is forced to rise up in order to free itself from exploitation. This takes a long time, not to mention, capitalism has evolved. It never drives people to that point anymore precisely due to fear of revolution.

[MarxSchmarx]

The liberation of the working class must come from the working class themselves. This is not a slogan,it is our "raison d'être". Our movement is a working class movement, where class is central to our analysis. We are committed to the abolition of class as the sole vehicle for the liberation of humanity, and that such an abolition can only come from the modern working class. This is what makes our analysis "scientific".

Frankly, to suggest otherwise is to tacitly endorse bourgeois, if not feudal, rule. The petty-bourgeois and middle-class intellectuals like Lenin or Che can help, but in the long run their successes depend on working people changing their own living conditions. If we don't stand for this, I have no idea what it is our program is about.

So, the liberation of the working class by the working class.

No more, no less.

[Ahmed]

People like Che and Lenin usually lead the revolution, not just "help". I am not debating that the revolution should eventually become a working man's revolution with the working class being both the majority as well as the force behind it, making the decisions and such. However, in regards to who should start it, I believe it will always be intellectuals like Che and Lenin, people familiar with Marxist ideas and the methods needed to carry out this revolution correctly. And there is no reason these people can't be workers, as someone mentioned before, middle class is a social not economic status, and it's not class in the sense of the class Marx spoke of. One could be less exploited by capitalists, but they would still be having their labour exploited for profit. People like doctors, scientists, professors, etc.