A Destructive Revolution?

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Ofcourse we all see a revolution as perhaps the best way to make our aims realised but do you see the revolution as being violent and destructive of most or all of the existing infrastructure, etc. or do you see it as seizing everything from the present government and our enemies?
I personally see it as a more a peacefulish seizure of what we need o provide us with a stable base with what we need, followed by quite a violent war I'm which they would soon be beaten due to our substantional base provided by the quick revolution.

So peaceful and seizing or violent and destructive? Or something else all together?

[Invincible Summer]

Seizure will most likely not come peacefully. Do you think the bourgeoisie and its allies will just willingly hand over the means of production? I'd like to hear your explanation as to how this will be so.

Most likely, there will be a mass movement that may result in some violence in order to make the seizure of production and property, not the other way around.

[StalinFanboy]

"I can only see a new world built upon the ashes of this one"

lulz


But for real, shit's gonna get hairy. The bourgeoisie are not gonna give up that easily. People are gonna be locked up and killed. Guarantee it.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Seizure will most likely not come peacefully. Do you think the bourgeoisie and its allies will just willingly hand over the means of production? I'd like to hear your explanation as to how this will be so.

Most likely, there will be a mass movement that may result in some violence in order to make the seizure of production and property, not the other way around.

Speed would really be important. A small group of people could easily take over factories, government buildings, etc. if they know what they're doing. In fact avoiding confrontation at the very beggining would be key.
The problem isn't seizing the infrastructure, it's defending it once you've got it.
But I would hope that many important bits would be seized at once and leaving them nowhere to go.

[La Comédie Noire]

All revolutions are violent, some will just be less violent than others. The more entrenched the system is and the more determined the old ruling class, the more radical the upheaval will have to be.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

All revolutions are violent, some will just be less violent than others. The more entrenched the system is and the more determined the old ruling class, the more radical the upheaval will have to be.

All revolutions are violent - however do you see this violence extending to the destruction of factories, schools, hospitals, governtment buildings, etc. and starting againg afterwards.
Or would you seek to keep these?

[La Comédie Noire]

All revolutions are violent - however do you see this violence extending to the destruction of factories, schools, hospitals, governtment buildings, etc. and starting againg afterwards.
Or would you seek to keep these?

I don't see much deliberate destruction, but there may be some accidental destruction. However, we may demolish houses to make really nice apartment buildings and we'll definitely be converting police stations and public buildings into something more useful.

[Invincible Summer]

Speed would really be important. A small group of people could easily take over factories, government buildings, etc. if they know what they're doing. In fact avoiding confrontation at the very beggining would be key.
The problem isn't seizing the infrastructure, it's defending it once you've got it.
But I would hope that many important bits would be seized at once and leaving them nowhere to go.
What you seem to be describing is basically a takeover of a factory that has been done by unions before.

It's not like once such an occurrence happens, the state is going to be all "Shit well they're seizing it so we can't do anything!"

They will forcibly remove the workers from the building, and most likely incarcerate them.

I don't know why you think it's so easy - if it was this way, then why hasn't it happened yet? There are plenty of proles in the US, and a good number of them are armed. There have been factory sit-ins and takeovers, but they were short-lived due to the bourgeois state intervening.


All revolutions are violent - however do you see this violence extending to the destruction of factories, schools, hospitals, governtment buildings, etc. and starting againg afterwards.
Or would you seek to keep these?

It makes no sense to destroy factories, schools, etc. What's the point? The violence would be in defense; defending the working class against the bourgeoisie that will try and reclaim their property by force.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

What you seem to be describing is basically a takeover of a factory that has been done by unions before.

It's not like once such an occurrence happens, the state is going to be all "Shit well they're seizing it so we can't do anything!"

They will forcibly remove the workers from the building, and most likely incarcerate them.

That would only happen if it was a smaller scale - sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I would imagine these 'seizures' to happen on a huge scale and to seize shops, hospitals, schools and government buildings etc. then with the police and army being without any primary targets or anything to attack they would move out in the open for a largescale offencive where we could in turn fight them and with our resources from what we have seize the state and capatalists would be at quite a disadvantage.




I don't know why you think it's so easy - if it was this way, then why hasn't it happened yet? There are plenty of proles in the US, and a good number of them are armed. There have been factory sit-ins and takeovers, but they were short-lived due to the bourgeois state intervening.

It hasn't worked yet because it has never been on such a huge scale required.



It makes no sense to destroy factories, schools, etc. What's the point? The violence would be in defense; defending the working class against the bourgeoisie that will try and reclaim their property by force.

I agree, however I know some 'revolutionaries' who would prefer to just smash stuff up.

[ZombieGrits]

However, we may demolish houses to make really nice apartment buildings

Nah, apartments suck to live in...

Suburbs could be tweaked to accomodate vastly more people. Just knock down some walls, alter some rooms here and there, and voila, quality readymade communal housing.

But after that, excess suburbs should be demolished, the materials salvaged for future projects, and the land broken in for agriculture.

[OldMoney]

I would like to see a democratic solution to the problem. If we have enough people ready to throw down and revolt violentley, couldnt we try to get a good socialist party with a functional platform elected. Maybee not in Canada, and deffinatley not in the states, but if A country could switch over to socialism peacfully the Imperialist couldnt properley place embargoes and sanctions on them without exposing them as baby killas. Im sure they would still try to hinder the economy as much as possible, but with co-operation between a socialist state and the rest of the capitolist markets, said country would be well on thier way. All we need is one example of a modern communist state to prove that the model works and we would be golden right?

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

I would like to see a democratic solution to the problem. If we have enough people ready to throw down and revolt violentley, couldnt we try to get a good socialist party with a functional platform elected. Maybee not in Canada, and deffinatley not in the states, but if A country could switch over to socialism peacfully the Imperialist couldnt properley place embargoes and sanctions on them without exposing them as baby killas. Im sure they would still try to hinder the economy as much as possible, but with co-operation between a socialist state and the rest of the capitolist markets, said country would be well on thier way. All we need is one example of a modern communist state to prove that the model works and we would be golden right?

I've been think about just how peacfull it could be, but for a socialist government to be completely peacefully installed it would have to be in a country where buisness, etc. is quite small so it would have to be a third world country. What first world country would look to a communist third world country for advice?
I do believe a slow transition towards communism is possible to achieve through the present political apparatus in several phases (eg. Liberalism --> Welfare state --> state capatalism --> socialism --> communism) but even that can't be completely peaceful as the capatalists would still try to continue, but only difference is that the state would be guiding us - but if you have a workers state then it should be ok.

[Dermezel]

Seizure will most likely not come peacefully. Do you think the bourgeoisie and its allies will just willingly hand over the means of production? I'd like to hear your explanation as to how this will be so.


Progressive taxes. By such means they already do hand over their property peacefully.

The bourgeoisie may have a negative institutional role, but they are still people. They will not become criminals and go to jail, most times, to avoid paying an extra 10% tax. They also do, generally, follow laws. Some even believe they are good bourgeoisie, and advocate higher taxes.

The US is behind the rest of the world on this, but already Northern Europe, France, Canada, and England are marching steadily towards socialism, and are, according to some, already very much there.

I'm not saying they won't put of a fight, but this can be overcome democratically as other nations have shown.

[Dermezel]

I would like to see a democratic solution to the problem. If we have enough people ready to throw down and revolt violentley, couldnt we try to get a good socialist party with a functional platform elected. Maybee not in Canada, and deffinatley not in the states, but if A country could switch over to socialism peacfully the Imperialist couldnt properley place embargoes and sanctions on them without exposing them as baby killas. Im sure they would still try to hinder the economy as much as possible, but with co-operation between a socialist state and the rest of the capitolist markets, said country would be well on thier way. All we need is one example of a modern communist state to prove that the model works and we would be golden right?

A probable transition is from capitalism to market socialism and then from market socialism to socialism proper. This is already underway to various degrees in various nation states. Northern Europe being a key example, where education and health care are virtually free. Likewise they have extensive welfare and public programs. Things I can only dream of living in the States.

[bricolage]

Might be violent, might not be, we aren't fortune tellers. I would say though that much as pacifism is ideologically bankrupt you do question the motives of those who completely fetishise violence to the extent that their concept of revolution is solely confined to ak's and grenades.

[Dermezel]

Might be violent, might not be, we aren't fortune tellers. I would say though that much as pacifism is ideologically bankrupt you do question the motives of those who completely fetishise violence to the extent that their concept of revolution is solely confined to ak's and grenades.

Caudwell:


Pacifism, for all its specious moral aspect, is, like Protestant Christianity, the creed of ultra-individualism and selfishness, just as Roman Catholicism is the creed of monopoly and privileged domination. This selfishness is seen in all the defences the bourgeois pacifist makes of his creed.


No pacifist has yet explained the causal chain by which non-resistance ends violence. It is true that it does so in this obvious way, that if no resistance is made to violent commands, no violence is necessary to enforce them. Thus if A does everything B asks him, it will not be necessary for B to use violence. But a dominating relation of this kind is in essence violent, although violence is not overtly shown. Subjection is subjection, and rapacity rapacity, even if the weakness of the victim, or the fear inspired by the victor, makes the process non-forcible. Non-resistance will not prevent it, any more than the lack of claws on the part of prey prevents carnivores battening on them. On the contrary, the carnivore selects as his victim animals of the kind. The remedy is the elimination of carnivores, that is, the extinction of classes that live by preying on others.

If the slave passively accepts his or her servitude, then yes, there is no need for force or violence.

Note, force and violence can be different. A revolution may require the use of force without violence.

[bricolage]

Well yes, I agree with that, like I said pacifism is bankrupt. The rest of my post still stands.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

A probable transition is from capitalism to market socialism and then from market socialism to socialism proper. This is already underway to various degrees in various nation states. Northern Europe being a key example, where education and health care are virtually free. Likewise they have extensive welfare and public programs. Things I can only dream of living in the States.
That's still a long, long way from socialism. If you want to see what happens when a socialist government gets democratically elected, look at Chile in the 1970s. Or Spain in the 30s, for that matter. Elements of the British bourgeoisie were prepared to consider the overthrow of Harold Wilson in the 1970s as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theories).

[Invincible Summer]

Progressive taxes. By such means they already do hand over their property peacefully.

The bourgeoisie may have a negative institutional role, but they are still people. They will not become criminals and go to jail, most times, to avoid paying an extra 10% tax. They also do, generally, follow laws. Some even believe they are good bourgeoisie, and advocate higher taxes.

The US is behind the rest of the world on this, but already Northern Europe, France, Canada, and England are marching steadily towards socialism, and are, according to some, already very much there.

I'm not saying they won't put of a fight, but this can be overcome democratically as other nations have shown.

But in a social democracy where institutions such as health-care and education are nationalized, that's not necessarily the same as handing over property to the working class.

[Belisarius]

i agree europe seems to be a lot further in the process of socialism than the US, but i see a worrying trend to imitate america (for example the privatisation of the railways, telephone companies etc.). so we could actually be taking one step forward but two steps back.

i don't think revolution will come peaceful, but i think we should use the least possible violence. it makes me think of a brecht-quote which goes something like this: "we who prepared the world for friendliness couldn't be friendly ourselves, but please remember us with some good will."

[Crusade]

Malcolm X to the rescueeeee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO9UF3q6Fhg

[Belisarius]

Those greedy few in the Capitalist society will never allow a revolution to come peacefully. What must happen is what has worked in the past, direct action towards a tyrannical governments work best and people will follow.
do i misunderstand you or do you want a tyrannical government? otherwise it would be "direct action against tyrannical governments".

[Invincible Summer]

do i misunderstand you or do you want a tyrannical government? otherwise it would be "direct action against tyrannical governments".

I think he's saying that bourgeois gov'ts are tyrannical, and the only way to change them is through direct action. I'm not sure if he means it in the anarchist sense though. I hope not, as history actually shows that anarchist direct action doesn't work very well at all...

[Kléber]

WE are not destructive, it's the capitalists who destroy lives, goods, homes, jobs, families, national populations, natural wonders etc. to keep their obsolete system alive and running..

We are constructive, building a democratic social order. As Durruti said, no bourgeois prejudices should stand in our way, we should be ready to bulldoze and demolish any obstacle, but the products of capitalism as a whole are not an obstacle, socialism is in fact only possible because of capitalist development, so we should capture as much property as we can for the commune, to put it under workers' control, therefore any collateral destruction of buildings/riches/specialists is to be avoided.

The first symbol of the Red Army, designed by Trotsky, was a "swords into plowshares" image indicating that the workers' and peasants' army was an army of construction, not destruction. The masses won't come to us because they want to light trash cans on fire, but they will come over to the revolution when they see the capitalists have lit the world on fire and we have the organization, strategy and tactics to put it out.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/179/redarmywj0.jpg

[CChocobo]

A revolution can happen peacefully. Read about the Seattle general strike in 1919. Non-violent strike basically managed to shut down seattle. A committee was formed in place of the government there, a new police was formed that used persuassion rather than force and did not carry weapons. Food was still delivered i.e. milk. I think a peaceful revolution is possible but it will turn violent once the state attempts to regain control of the situation. Which we see time and time they do with their thugs in riot gear and the armed forces.

[red cat]

...therefore any collateral destruction of buildings/riches/specialists is to be avoided.



The revolution is the festival of the masses. Therefore very often it is not possible to prevent the destruction of the symbols of oppression.

I would like to concentrate on the question of specialists, though. "Specialists" are generally among the privileged few who have enjoyed the luxury of higher education. They have a class-character of their own and tend to side with the reactionary ruling classes. Therefore we should not have any reservations if they are dealt with accordingly by the masses. We can train our own specialists; millions of them, with the help of the few that support the revolution.

[Belisarius]

The revolution is the festival of the masses. Therefore very often it is not possible to prevent the destruction of the symbols of oppression.

I would like to concentrate on the question of specialists, though. "Specialists" are generally among the privileged few who have enjoyed the luxury of higher education. They have a class-character of their own and tend to side with the reactionary ruling classes. Therefore we should not have any reservations if they are dealt with accordingly by the masses. We can train our own specialists; millions of them, with the help of the few that support the revolution.
i think prohibiting some knowledge is a very dangerous thing. all ideas should be tolerated, even reactionary ones. otherwise our adherence to freedom wouldn't mean much. as the saying goes: where books are burnt, people are burnt.

[Sam Da Communist]

speaking historically Some revolutions are very peaceful, others not so, others completely destructive.

Many different types of revolution comrade.

*Agricultural revolution as done by Mugabe (re-privatisation away from whites), Stalin (there was a war on the farms, literally! hence starvations)
*There have been parlimentary revolutions like thingys, south america is very strange, venezuela and bolivia have elected socialist governments quite peacefully, venezuela did a bit of a coup but still very peaceful. The nature of US imperialism allowed for good mass conciousness.
*Ghandi revolution independence was violent and peaceful/pacifist
*East europe counter-revolution capitalist revolutions were peacefully done as the communist ruling class happily decieded to reform to be the new bourgeois.
*The russian, chinese, french revolutions civil wars were pretty bloody, and was fought through conventional warfare.
*Che guevaraist, and prachandapath nepal Maoist guerilla warfare were not very bloody. a couple thousand people died, or dozen thousand, unlike the millions that died in russia and china.

With a revolution in australia a first world nation, i guess it would be fucking bloody. Germany, france spain, usa almost had their leftist revolutions, all got crushed!

Keep an eye on the south americas and south asia movements.
With a revolution in australia a first world nation, i guess it would be fucking bloody. Germany, france spain, usa almost had their leftist revolutions, all got crushed!

Keep an eye on the south americas and south asia movements, i am. Keep an eyeball on India, and their maoist Naxalites!

[red cat]

i think prohibiting some knowledge is a very dangerous thing. all ideas should be tolerated, even reactionary ones. otherwise our adherence to freedom wouldn't mean much. as the saying goes: where books are burnt, people are burnt.

True. But you cannot command the masses into tolerating any ideas. Some amount of intolerance arising as the natural reaction to oppression will be there.

[red cat]

speaking historically Some revolutions are very peaceful, others not so, others completely destructive.

Many different types of revolution comrade.

*Agricultural revolution as done by Mugabe (re-privatisation away from whites), Stalin (there was a war on the farms, literally! hence starvations)
*There have been parlimentary revolutions like thingys, south america is very strange, venezuela and bolivia have elected socialist governments quite peacefully, venezuela did a bit of a coup but still very peaceful. The nature of US imperialism allowed for good mass conciousness.
*Ghandi revolution independence was violent and peaceful/pacifist
*East europe counter-revolution capitalist revolutions were peacefully done as the communist ruling class happily decieded to reform to be the new bourgeois.
*The russian, chinese, french revolutions civil wars were pretty bloody, and was fought through conventional warfare.
*Che guevaraist, and prachandapath nepal Maoist guerilla warfare were not very bloody. a couple thousand people died, or dozen thousand, unlike the millions that died in russia and china.

With a revolution in australia a first world nation, i guess it would be fucking bloody. Germany, france spain, usa almost had their leftist revolutions, all got crushed!

Keep an eye on the south americas and south asia movements.
With a revolution in australia a first world nation, i guess it would be fucking bloody. Germany, france spain, usa almost had their leftist revolutions, all got crushed!

Keep an eye on the south americas and south asia movements, i am. Keep an eyeball on India, and their maoist Naxalites!

You are yet to understand what a revolution really is. Gandhi's movement and the various capitalist restorations cannot be termed as revolutions when studying the class character of the politics associated.

In a revolution classes with greater production capabilities than the ruling classes replace them. The above examples contradict this.

[Communist]

Originally Posted by FreeInChoice
Those greedy few in the Capitalist society will never allow a revolution to come peacefully. What must happen is what has worked in the past, direct action towards a tyrannical governments work best and people will follow.

I trashed that post. I wasn't sure what it meant, if this member was referring to capitalist governments as tyrannical or if tyranny is what he/she wants; but since this member never clarified, and it does sound like advocating tyranny, I assumed that to be the case.

.