Revolution impossible?

[Bloody Armalite]

Hello Comrades, i was wondering, if Armed revolution broke out would you Fight for Marxism, or would you stay out of it and pursue purely democratic struggle, i see democratically bound revolutionaries useless as the Governments of the world will do ANYTHING to stop the spread of communism.
How is revolution through non violent means possible, sein fien was banned from speaking in public up til 94 i think it was so when you are stopped from winning with democratic means, would you be willing to take the next step.
Thanks comrades

[Muzk]

What do you mean? Go RAF and shoot some capital owner asses?

[New Tet]

Socialist Industrial Unionism is the non-violent way to achieve a socialist revolution.

[Bloody Armalite]

as in armed conflict against the state, like the IRA wged in Northern Ireland but for Marxism.

[Coggeh]

as in armed conflict against the state, like the IRA wged in Northern Ireland but for Marxism.
The key issue with 'armed revolution' is its misunderstanding . People tend to think of marxists who don't pursue a line of tactics such as the IRA did for nationalism as pacifists when we are most certainly not . The issue we raise is that individual terrorism (tactics of groups like the IRA, ETA etc) alienate the working class from the movement and are counter productive to their goals .

I can't speak for all marxists or even trotskyists but the CWI in Ireland pursue a tactic of building a mass workers party capable of challenging the capitalist establisment . Does this mean we only believe in socialism via the ballot box ? of course not. In fact we hold no illusions of bourgeois democracy as revolution is the only option for establishing socialism .

We do believe in armed revolution but it is entirely different to indivdual terrorism. Its about mass revolutionary workers orgasations to defend the revolution as it bares dire consequences if their not (a paramound mistake of allende in Chile ).Again we neither believe in individual terrorism nor pacifism as we recognise the bourgeois won't just sit back and watch workers take over society (Civil war in Russia).

[Bloody Armalite]

There were 100,000 mourners at Bobby Sands funeral, all working class.
And i would of supported the INLA whoe were the true followers of James Connolly.

[Omegared]

I believe most committed Marxists would fight in the most extreme situations. Also, the FBI director J. E. Hoover (I BELIEVE IT WAS HIM CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG) stated that the free breakfast program was the biggest threat the to National Security to the United States. This led to assassinations of some leading Black Panthers.

My point is that the powers-that-be and bourgeoisie are just as threatened by effective and organized revolutionary social programs as they are are by armed and trained militants.

So even if you have every intent on using nonviolence and community social programs that could threaten the status quo, they are going to try and strongarm you out of existence. If counterintel programs don't work then force could also be an option.

When you do get involved in community just realized the door could go flying off the hinges at any moment!!!!

[mikelepore]

........ i see democratically bound revolutionaries useless as the Governments of the world will do ANYTHING to stop the spread of communism.

People who say things like this are speaking as though the government is a bunch of aliens who came down from another world. Who and what is the government? It is only the reflection of the fact that your working class coworkers, family members, neighbors and friends believe in capitalism and therefore continue to vote for political candidates who believe in capitalism.

Of course we can have a peaceful revolution. The working class need to unite industrially to prepare to take possession of the industries and administer them, and unite politically to enact the necessary political mandate that will declare the industries to be socially owned.

There is no alien "they" or "them" who can stop this process. Your conservative working class coworkers, family members, neighbors and friends are the only impedance, and will cease to be an impedance during the industrial and political organization process.

Anyone who supports an armed rebellion must envision a revolution as something that a minority enacts prematurely, without having to wait for the consent of the working class. If the consent of the working class were first obtained, there would be no remaining impedance, making armed rebellion unnecessary.

[cb9's_unity]

Some people become too excited about violence on this site. They love to say revolution must come from a barrel of a gun but neglect to see the fact that the modern first world isn't 1940's China.

I would certainly fight for proletarian revolution but I do not see violence as at all practical at this point in time. Right now the capitalist media has the working class wrapped around its finger. Violent actions by revolutionaries will only be seen as terrorism in the eyes of most of the working class and the capitalist media will clearly not give any voice to their message.

In short any revolutionary one must be a largely peaceful one. If the capitalists strike violently first then retaliation will be justified and will likely be viewed as justified by the working class. However the working class doesn't want violence, they want social change. It is not our job to alienate them with acts of terrorism but instead to influence them into changing and abolishing capitalist society.

[red cat]

Some people become too excited about violence on this site. They love to say revolution must come from a barrel of a gun but neglect to see the fact that the modern first world isn't 1940's China.

I would certainly fight for proletarian revolution but I do not see violence as at all practical at this point in time. Right now the capitalist media has the working class wrapped around its finger. Violent actions by revolutionaries will only be seen as terrorism in the eyes of most of the working class and the capitalist media will clearly not give any voice to their message.

Here you are wrong to assume that the working class will take their input from the reactionary media only. If a strong mass base is built alongside the armed struggle, then the Bourgeois press itself will be reduced to a joke.



In short any revolutionary one must be a largely peaceful one. If the capitalists strike violently first then retaliation will be justified and will likely be viewed as justified by the working class. However the working class doesn't want violence, they want social change. It is not our job to alienate them with acts of terrorism but instead to influence them into changing and abolishing capitalist society.

Violence by the Bourgeoisie is not always military. Since they own the means of production, they can be economically violent as well. Pushing a proletarian family towards starvation is as good as shooting them as well; and the workers know it. So wherever oppression intensifies, military actions by the vanguard party will be justified by the proletariat.

[Lymos]

I don't really understand why both can't go hand and hand.

Although not an anarchist, Jose Rizal, through writing a book, was able to inspire people to take arms and start a violent revolution.

Of course... I'm biased because this person is our national hero.

Nevertheless, looking at the revolutions that succeed the past. The makers were never about "Should I be violent or not be violent?"

It has always been, what was the most necessary action necessary through their perspective at the time.

[Radical]

Hello Comrades, i was wondering, if Armed revolution broke out would you Fight for Marxism, or would you stay out of it and pursue purely democratic struggle, i see democratically bound revolutionaries useless as the Governments of the world will do ANYTHING to stop the spread of communism.
How is revolution through non violent means possible, sein fien was banned from speaking in public up til 94 i think it was so when you are stopped from winning with democratic means, would you be willing to take the next step.
Thanks comrades


I'm only speaking for what I think.

The majority of the left in the UK only reach out to whats ideal for them.
I see all this talk of the unemployed working class being Revolutionary. However, they could be doing SO MUCH MORE for the Revolution.

If you cant get a job, fuck it. Get a job and work in a charity shop. Work for free. Give blood. HELP HUMANITY AND DONT JUST THINK ABOUT YOUR FUCKING SELF.

Just because somebody advocates Revolution, doesn't mean I'm going to suck their dick and respect them.

I believe on a realistic scale. Revolution wont start in the UK, just like it wont start in USA. If Revolution will ever seriously get here, shit needs to change. The youth with a higher level of education should be moving abroad helping Revolution where it's more likely to occur. While the people unable to do so should stay in the UK and educate people for when revolution is attempted to be spread here.

Just because I'm working class, doesn't mean I'm not going to fucking criticize people on the working class.

[New Tet]

[...]
I believe on a realistic scale. Revolution wont start in the UK, just like it wont start in USA. If Revolution will ever seriously get here, shit needs to change. The youth with a higher level of education should be moving abroad helping Revolution where it's more likely to occur. While the people unable to do so should stay in the UK and educate people for when revolution is attempted to be spread here.


If and when the revolution comes, it will start everywhere.

[chegitz guevara]

If a modern day Weather Underground appeared (for example), I would consider them comrades and offer them critical support, and offer strong criticism of their methods. I certainly would not join them, however, as I consider terrorism to be counter-productive.

In any event, whether or not I'd join an armed struggle depends on whether or not I considered the effort premature or not. I would also consider my physical condition, which really isn't up to such atm.

[New Tet]

If a modern day Weather Underground appeared (for example), I would consider them comrades and offer them critical support, and offer strong criticism of their methods. I certainly would not join them, however, as I consider terrorism to be counter-productive.

In any event, whether or not I'd join an armed struggle depends on whether or not I considered the effort premature or not. I would also consider my physical condition, which really isn't up to such atm.

The old talk about revolutions while the young make them.

[Lymos]

The old talk about revolutions while the young make them.

I don't know where this quote came from but I consider this wrong and stupid because this was how the 2nd People Power Revolution made the Philippines worse while the first, despite it's criticisms, was a step forward.

Sure, it's a small example but even as a concept, the youth is always most likely to ignore the lessons of history and commit the greatest of travesties compared to the old.

This doesn't mean that the old by default can't and aren't making stupid decisions but throughout history the most successful revolutions are the ones that were talked about and the ones who made them possible are often composed of bandwagonners who won't blink an eye for the issue after the revolution is all said and done.