Revolution Question

[ZombieGrits]

If a socialist/communist revolution was beginning to form, but the organisation leading the revolt was not one that you agreed with fully (example: you're an anarcho-syndicalist, and the revolution is led by leninists), would you still support the movement, to what extent, and why?

[Bandito]

Moved.

[mikelepore]

If a popular movement would genuinely put the people in the driver's seat, we should support it. Even if it's imperfect, the form it can be improved on a future occasion.

But if the movement seems to give power to leaders, who are not the people's responsive delegates, we should oppose the movement.

If the movement seems to lure new members with the general attitude 'if you're angry, trust us" and "later on the 'masses' will find out what the real objective is, and then they will be pleasantly surprised", we should oppose it.

I would decline to participate in any movement that combines short-term reform demands with a supposed long-term objective of "a new society", because I interpret the inclusion of reform bait to be a veiled form of "trust us leaders -- we know what's best for you, but you wouldn't be able to understand it -- just join us if you're angry."

[ContrarianLemming]

I would participate in a revolution yes, any anarchist one and any non leninist marxist one, we saw what happened to anarchists who supported the bolsheviks, no thanks

[kiwigunner]

I like to think of myself as a mercenary, you pay the bills I fight for you.... that way it makes life simple.

[AK]

I'd just hope the working class itself is truly in control after the revolution, or ima fuck shit up :lol:

[el_chavista]

If a socialist/communist revolution was beginning to form, but the organisation leading the revolt was not one that you agreed with fully (example: you're an anarcho-syndicalist, and the revolution is led by leninists), would you still support the movement, to what extent, and why?
Another slight different variant for non proletarian revolutions in Latin America: would you support petty-bourgeois-led nationalist movements although they are mistaking social justice and egalitarianism for socialism?
In other words, would you have supported Castro's revolution in 1960 or -now a days- do you support Chávez's Bolivarian revolution?

[syndicat]

It depends on the nature of the movement. If it is a mass democratic movement, based on unions and other mass organizations, then it should be supported. If it's a question of some party getting itself into control of the state, then no. A genuine revolultionary situation will generally allow for mass struggles and mass organizations one can participate in, even if there are certain highly influence political organizations that you disagree with. The trick there is to be a voice for rank and file democracy in such a situation.

[Jacobinist]

2 possibilities:

#1) Support and participate to directly aide the vanguard group, and then be shot by the authoritarians at a later date.

#2) Particpate by joining a counter-vanguard and be shot sooner.

Not much hope.

[The Ben G]

It matters. If its some Juche cult, im starting a seperate revolution. Otherwise, if its a non Stalin based revolution, im in.

[Chimurenga.]

I would participate in a revolution yes, any anarchist one and any non leninist marxist one, we saw what happened to anarchists who supported the bolsheviks, no thanks

Doesn't mean it will happen again.

[Tatarin]

It would be supported. It could take decades for another revolution to built up "according to" another tendency, and by that time a lot of things could have happened (increased means of suppressing a revolution, for example).

For example, I am pretty skeptical as how an anarchist revolution would go about, or the society after it, but if it works out in real life, then I really don't see any problems. After all, don't everyone here want such a society both communists and anarchists strive for?

[Jacobinist]

"After all, don't everyone here want such a society both communists and anarchists strive for? " - Wise Tatarin

Exactly.

[AK]

Doesn't mean it will happen again.
What with all the sectarianism around, it just might...

"After all, don't everyone here want such a society both communists and anarchists strive for? " - Wise Tatarin

Exactly.
But Marxists and Anarchists have different but closely related ways of achieving such a society. One major difference is that Anarchists are totally against the existence of the state, so as long as there is a state - even if it's a socialist one - then the Anarchists will oppose it, as their view means that they see the state as unnecessary and nearly always oppressive.

[Tatarin]

But Marxists and Anarchists have different but closely related ways of achieving such a society.

Well, time have to tell.


One major difference is that Anarchists are totally against the existence of the state, so as long as there is a state - even if it's a socialist one - then the Anarchists will oppose it, as their view means that they see the state as unnecessary and nearly always oppressive.

Yes, this is of course the issue. I don't really know, you'll have to ask the anarchists about this. :)

[Jacobinist]

One major difference is that Anarchists are totally against the existence of the state, so as long as there is a state - even if it's a socialist one - then the Anarchists will oppose it, as their view means that they see the state as unnecessary and nearly always oppressive. - quack

Wells thats the point which was made and I simply supported. The difference is the means to achieve the ends. I think most Marxists agree that the end is a classless society. You can't have a bourgeois government not directly accountable to the community in place, and call it revolutionary. It's not, its basically what we got now, and the idea of socialist policies (ie nationalizing, central banks, etc) means nothing in this case.

So the main split between Communists and anarchists is that they disagree on how to achieve the revolutionary community.

[Comrade B]

I would have to be convinced that it is actually a left movement and that the end goal would create more good than the damage it would cause in its creation.

[Cowboy Killer]

I'm really undecided on this one... I mean what could anarchists do if a leninist organization were to revolt? I guess we could just sit back and wait until they destroy capitalism and then destroy them.

[Tablo]

I voted undecided. I really don't know what I would do if some Leninist(name your tendency) group were trying to fight a revolution. I would have to decide whether this was a political revolution or a people's revolution and then decide whether I think it will cause more good or harm. Not too sure. I guess it depends.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Of course, a revolution which brings working class control over the organisation and control of the means of production is something all revolutionaries support. As long as power is in the hands of the workers there is no reason not to support a revolution based along your ideological preferences.

For example, I am an Anarchist and not a leninist because I believe in decentralised power and a federation of workers councils rather that a centralised power. This is because I feel this is the only way to ensure power stays with the working class. However if a leninist influenced revolution was ensuring power stayed with the working class I would support it.

[AK]

Of course, a revolution which brings working class control over the organisation and control of the means of production is something all revolutionaries support. As long as power is in the hands of the workers there is no reason not to support a revolution based along your ideological preferences.

For example, I am an Anarchist and not a leninist because I believe in decentralised power and a federation of workers councils rather that a centralised power. This is because I feel this is the only way to ensure power stays with the working class. However if a leninist influenced revolution was ensuring power stayed with the working class I would support it.
I support all that you mentioned with the exception that I believe the state is instrumental before the arrival of Communism because laws will still be necessary up until the point that all the causes of criminal offences are erased - as this cannot simply happen during revolution. Another reason why I recognise the importance of the state is that a socialistic territory would easily fall to a capitalist aggressor (as an invasion would definitely follow, in places such as Australia or Britain or anywhere such as the PRC where lots of overseas labour is based) if it were not well-defended with an organised and up to date military.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I support all that you mentioned with the exception that I believe the state is instrumental before the arrival of Communism because laws will still be necessary up until the point that all the causes of criminal offences are erased - as this cannot simply happen during revolution.

I didn't say I didn't believe laws won't be necessary.


Another reason why I recognise the importance of the state is that a socialistic territory would easily fall to a capitalist aggressor (as an invasion would definitely follow, in places such as Australia or Britain or anywhere such as the PRC where lots of overseas labour is based) if it were not well-defended with an organised and up to date military.

I didn't say I wan't a void where the state was, I want a different form of organisation.

[AK]

I didn't say I didn't believe laws won't be necessary.
Laws form part of the state. The police enforce them. The government decides upon and makes them.

I didn't say I wan't a void where the state was, I want a different form of organisation.
Maybe, some sort of militia?

[A.J.]

Surely in a revolutionary situation things would be, by the very nature of the situation, so polarised you couldn't really sit on the sidelines?
Indeed, not to participate could be objectively reactionary.

[Chambered Word]

As long as it puts the working class in power, so I guess I'm going to get called a sectarian by the Stalimaos now.

Unfortunately as a Leninist I may find myselves being shot at by anarchists and this would sadden me as I would be forced to shoot them back. :(

[red cat]

I will participate. As long as the movement is revolutionary and strives for communism, there is no place for sectarian politics. Making even a small portion of the proletariat effectively class-conscious would be sufficient to ensure that revisionists get kicked out.

[Tablo]

As long as it puts the working class in power, so I guess I'm going to get called a sectarian by the Stalimaos now.

Unfortunately as a Leninist I may find myselves being shot at by anarchists and this would sadden me as I would be forced to shoot them back. :(
Anarchists are much much less likely to shoot at you than Stalinists.

[Chambered Word]

Anarchists are much much less likely to shoot at you than Stalinists.

Stalinists use other weapons, like ice picks and knives.

[AK]

Stalinists use other weapons, like ice picks and knives.
Lol... don't forget their imperialist armies :lol:


Anarchists are much much less likely to shoot at you than Stalinists.
@Comrade Lewis: He's got a point. It's just that calling yourself a Leninist isn't going to end well for you if Stalinists and Maoists call themselves Leninists, too - what with Anarchists and Stalinists-&-Maoists hating each other and all...

[Chambered Word]

@Comrade Lewis: He's got a point. It's just that calling yourself a Leninist isn't going to end well for you if Stalinists and Maoists call themselves Leninists, too - what with Anarchists and Stalinists-&-Maoists hating each other and all...

I personally think us Leninists have a lot more in common with anarchists than Stalinists but I'm afraid when things do heat up the anarchists will react violently against any kind of state, even though I like them. :wub:

Calling oneself a Trot is enough to distance yourself from Stalinists anyway.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Laws form part of the state. The police enforce them. The government decides upon and makes them.

Laws are not synonymous with centralised state structures and top down forms of organisation. I believe in laws but enforced without a central authority.

[The Ben G]

Calling oneself a Trot is enough to distance yourself from Stalinists anyway.

Yep. Not to mention the multiple 'You Stupid revisionist. Go read something.' Neg Reps you get.

[The Ben G]

Anarchists are much much less likely to shoot at you than Stalinists.

I wouldnt shoot at anyone unless if they are 1. A Fascist/Capitalist or 2. Being a dick ie, the 'Go read something' Stalimaos.

[AK]

Laws are not synonymous with centralised state structures and top down forms of organisation. I believe in laws but enforced without a central authority.
Laws are synonymous with the state - how do you think the Bourgeoisie enforces it's will on the lower classes today? Although, it is possible for the Proletariat and Peasantry to enforce their will on themselves - without a centralised authority as you mentioned. You might have a code of ethics saying it's wrong to murder or steal, etc., but laws are the most integral part of the state - and, as an Anarchist of sorts, you are against states, are you not?

[ArmedGuerilla]

Indeed. Any type of revolution that puts power into the hands of radical leftists is better than the capitalist AmeriKKKan pig imperial government as of now. After the revolution the ideology of the state can be changed...

[Wolf Larson]

I would not support some cult of personality. I would support any movement made up of the workers themselves.

[iskrabronstein]

I would without hesitation support any revolutionary movement, socialist or anarchist, provided that it was genuinely based on workers' democracy, and open ideological conflict in debate and election rather than factional backstabbing.